"LEGAL - POLITICAL - OR BOTH?"

Don't know whether or not you are a fan of TV shows specializing in courtroom drama.

I am, but can't explain why. Maybe it's just that it makes me think - about logic - and the absence of same, as supposedly demonstrated by "the bad guy.".

Here's an example. Let's say a prosecuting attorney is questioning a woman who is accused of Murder.

He or she shuffles some papers at the table - strolls up to the stand - looks the accused in the eye - and after a few more seconds, asks her," So is it true that you were sleeping with the deceased's brother - his son - the butler and the gardener - and were arrested as a child for chopping off the necks of live chickens?"

The defense attorney immediately jumps up and challenges the prosecutors question. The judge sustains the objection and charges the jury as follows: "The jury will ignore the question, and it will be struck from the proceedings."

The jury - half with their mouths still open far enough to swallow whole a canary, two hummingbirds and possibly the chicken, stare at the female defendent with dismay.

So, what do you feel will be the impact as they meet to decide her fate? To what extent do you believe the carefully posed question will impact their final decision as to the innocence of the woman - or at least her chances to be found guilty due to what, if true, appears to be a rather active but questionable life style?

I don't have an answer here - just a supposition - that extends to other apparent wrongdoings in this country. Time and time again we read due to a hard working investigative reporter or a watchdog group of some repute, facts I find offensive but, which may be currently legal.

Their report may be about a member of Congress who, via his or her long tenure, heads up an important committee. The report states that this politician has received an unusally large campaign contribution from a business or lobbyist who regularly comes before them seeking a favorable decision by the committee.

The politican or a staff member will later comment that, "regardless of the favorable decision reached by the committee, it should be noted that at no time did the politician allow the large contribution to affect his or her judgment in the matter."(Unlike the jury - right?)

We have become somewhat enured to the situation just described and refer to it thusly: "Just politics as usual."

We appear to be willing to accept that politicians - like jury members- have the ability not to be persuaded by questionably shady individuals, like the prosecuting attorney above.

The focus of our trust and value system now shifts from politicians losing their battle with ethics - to the one thing we have been taught is an immutable truth.

That truth was inferred to us in our formidable years. It is that while politicians can be swayed by gifts, favors, etc that will not occur to the Highest Court In Our Land.

Local and state judges have made headlines for years. But, many of us have tended to give The Supreme Court a free pass.

Perhaps that's not true now when we suspect everyone, but, in years past many of us viewed our Supreme Court Decisions - based on precedential law - as being made at a higher level, and thus sacrosanct. That does not mean we always agreed with them, but perhaps, instead, just respected the collective wisdom and honesty of the court.

We were taught in school that there is a reason we have three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. But, the one entity who thru the years has garnered our strongest support is that of the High Court Judiciary.

We are not arguing this to be a necessarily correct assumption but, as a belief we sometimes need in order to retain our sanity in these days of convuluted logic.

The Supreme Court is known as the Court Of Last Resort. It applies it's majority ruling to the actions - or lack of same- by both the legislative and executive branches. When Congress passes some "other-worldly" legislation that the President goes along with -we look to the Supreme Court for unbiased justice. We are also blessed to be able to review the conclusions of the minority so we can better understand how reasonable minds can differ.

Again, that is not meant to suggest that we have necessarily always agreed with the decisions of "the highest court in the land." We have experienced decisions "back in the day" that protected slavery.

Even more recently we saw a Supreme Court decision that enabled a presidential candidate, George W. Bush, to become our nation's President.

The fact that seven of the nine judges on the Court were Republican appointees, and ruled in Bush's favor, appeared to many as a huge crack in our view that the Supreme Court Justices , as a whole, were unbiased and their decision in Citizens United was due to their respect and understanding of righteous precedent.

The subject of their decision was promulgated by the Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court. This group sought to have their conclusion on questionable vote counting procedures decided by the High Court in the favor of Democratic candidate Al Gore.

Various election boards - mostly Democrat appointed - attempted to assist Al by making Carnac like predictions as to what the intent of the voter was, despite a lack of clarity from the chads.

This is admittedly an oversimplification. A more interesting and informative column on the subject was written by conservative columnist George Witt on 12/10/10 at StarTribune.com., Tthis was one of the resources we sought out before taking on the subject at hand.

Regardless of your political persuasion, and dislike for George, many of us were bothered by the circumstances he described as leading up to the final decision.

My sole hope for this country is that cooler and less politically motivated members of the judiciary and media can keep us (as our elders liked to say), "From going to Hell in a handbasket."

Now, we're not so sure. There is a reason why one of the two parties often mounts an incredible opposition, considerable controversy and some really stupid questions to a Supreme Court nominee, especially one recommended by the opposition party. They fear the selection of the perceived liberal or conservative nominee as will have a dastardly effect on future court decisions involving their party line.

Recent events have caused this naive blogger to see situations suggesting Legal and Political has crossed lines we never imagined. We had hoped this would never become a reality but; is not to suggest a head in the sand approach.

I recognize the increasing communication overload is just one reason for some unfounded media allegations to be aired - but, I still want to feel comfortable that I am usually receiving an honest account of an event or an individuals actions. I still want to believe Puck was accurate when the banner line under his image said, "All the news that's fit to print."

Please don't even start about Vietman coverage. Sadly, I bought into that one too.

Judge's Scalia and Thomas - often rumored to be connected at the hip - are under fire for
attending all expense paid events sponsored by conservative interest groups.

It appears this is nothing new, but it seems to be increasing - and it's a scary challenge to our collective naivete.
.
Recent Supreme Court selected Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, enjoyed a weeks vacation in Puerto Rico shortly before her nomination. The payer: The American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that has a 4th amendment case in front of the Supreme Court now.

They argue that their client, Abdullah al-Kidd, once held in custody as a material witness in a matter following 9/11, should be allowed to recover damages from then Attorney General John Ashcroft. Admittedly, there are many factors involved here. Should the Justice recuse herself?

The event Scalia and Thomas attended was hosted by corporate guru and huge political contributor, Charles Koch. The two justices are now under attack by the liberal interest group, Common Cause, for accepting free trips from the Federalist Society and for NOT recusing themselves from the 2010 Citizens United case that "paved the way for increased corporate and union donations."

This case is a subject near and dear to my heart, commented upon previously, and one that will be explored further in a future blog. An appropriate title of that blog might be, "The Gift That Keeps On Giving!"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended a summit in Montreal that billed it's meeting as "an intellectual platform to explore how the constructs of race, religion, gender, sexuality and class and nation create serious inequalities,conflicts and human suffering."

Fat chance those issues will ever come up before the Court.

Did the various trips made by the Justices impact on their votes? Probably not. They may have already had firm positions that shared the views of the folks entertaining them. But, we'll never find out. My question is "Why should we ever have to worry about it?"

There must be a way for the Justices to fall under the "Purer than Caesar's wife" dictate.

With all the greed, corruption, morality issues, etc. by members of Congress and business executives, coming to our attention, we desperately need to believe that the Supreme Court and it's Justices are fulfilling their responsibility as being arbiters of justice that will never be "unduly" influenced.

The Washington Post suggests several compromises to assure that which the Justices might
consider. The article is entitled "The Justices Junkets" (2/20/11).

Bottom line: We should easily be able to distinguish "Legal" from "Political" as it applies to our Supreme Court Justices - and we're not suggesting " brain washing" or "waterboarding".

If the Justices do not currently understand the important principle behind that need -do they now need to take safeguards to prevent us from reaching questionable conclusions?