Where I Stand: Court ruling on Clinton suit stirs ugly political waters

Wednesday, May 28, 1997 | 10:48 a.m.

I F I WERE IN THE predicting business, I'd predict some very ugly times ahead for the next few presidents of the United States.

Let me tell you why.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday that President Clinton did not have any special immunity from civil lawsuits for actions alleged to have occurred before he became president. Consequently, the Paula Jones sexual harassment case can now go forward, or backward, depending upon the rulings of the federal judge assigned to the case.

To say that the decision is a setback for the president is an understatement. To say that it is a setback for Americans looking for good people to run for office is equally disquieting.

After all, what person of great wisdom and talent needs to have that kind of lawsuit hanging over his or her head while trying to run a country? And who needs some meddling lawyers always in your face while you are trying to figure out the best way to balance a federal budget without throwing millions of people out of work or more onto the streets without the safety of a welfare net? And, finally, who needs the kind of embarrassment that inevitably stems from the court filings that, true or not, are the stuff of which headlines and ratings points are made?

The problem I have noticed with those who are trying to make some sense and bring some rationality to a decision, which is now the law of the land, is that whether or not the people agree or even understand the finer points has more to do with their political affiliation and the esteem, high or low, in which they hold President Clinton.

So, I have a plan. I'll not talk about Paula Jones or President Clinton. In part because they create too much emotional baggage to get through to the substance of the arguments on both sides and, in part -- the largest part -- because the door the high court has opened, or refused to close, will affect future presidents far worse than the current White House occupant. And that eventuality is what threatens to make life at the top in these United States uglier than most people will like.

Twenty years ago the thought of a citizen suing a sitting president for some alleged civil wrong was not only unheard of but, for most people, morally repugnant. Bothering the person charged with the awesome responsibility of protecting and defending the Constitution and the people of this country was considered, at the very least, bad form. In fact, my generation and those before us were taught that the presidency was an office to be revered and to be protected.

Today, things are different.

The now generation has grown up with little or no respect for authority and even less for the presidency. Where it was a rarity to see someone refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance just a few years ago, it is almost commonplace to witness the defiance in growing numbers of young people as they not only refuse to recite the pledge but do their darndest to disrupt those who are. This singular lack of respect for the flag and other government institutions has manifest itself in a belief system that not only removes the presidency from a protective pedestal on which it used to stand, but subjects that office to a standard that cannot be met. This, in turn, creates failed expectations and the cynicism that ultimately must result.

Another great difference in today's world is the esteem, actually the lack of it, in which our federal judiciary is held. In years past, a federal judge was either good or bad, smart or dull, erudite or common. Rarely, however, would the kind and quality of a judge's politics play a significant role in his or her qualifications while on the bench.

That has changed dramatically. How many public cases have we witnessed recently in which the judge has not been characterized in terms of the political party of the president who appointed him? Not many. Years ago, no one really cared whether a judge was appointed by a Republican or Democrat.

Today, however, that single bit of information creates the kind of public perception that categorizes a judge before he rules and couches any judgment he makes in political rather than legal terms.

Given that as a backdrop, let's fast forward a decade or so.

Since any citizen can file any kind of civil suit against a sitting president and force that president to spend time, money and attention on that lawsuit, the ability of a handful of political activists to disrupt or, worse, blackmail a sitting president becomes apparent. Given the choice of creating legal defense funds to pay Washington lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour for thousands of hours of work or just settling those lawsuits for the nuisance value they demand, any president will be hard put to defend, regardless of the substance of the charges.

And the only person the Supreme Court has just ruled needs to be arbitrating such an outcome is a federal district judge. Years ago, that might have worked. Today, no way. If it is a Republican president and a Democratically appointed federal judge, any ruling made against the chief executive will be suspect, regardless of its legal basis. And if it is a Democratic president in front of the same judge, well, you can just hear the good old boy charges now.

The common complaint against the judiciary today is that it allows too many frivolous lawsuits to be filed and tried by juries in this country. How many of these judges do you think will have the fortitude required to throw out the myriad of politically based lawsuits that most certainly will follow a new president into office?

Than answer is obvious and quite disheartening. We are at a point in our nation's history in which cynicism is at very high levels and expectations are going the other way. That combination does not bode well for our democracy under the best of conditions.

Now that the political sharks have a whole new forum in which to fight for their causes -- the courtroom with the president of the United States as a civil defendant -- I don't expect we'll ascend to former heights anytime soon.

That is not a thought that leads to happy predictions.