Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Courts deserve support

Saturday, Jan. 6, 2001 | 2:56 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

The words of the four dissenting justices in the 5-4 Gore vs. Bush decision, and of several legal scholars, must have been on the mind of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist when making his annual report to Congress.

Justice John Paul Stevens views the decision as damaging the "nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Law Professor Michael Gerhardt of William and Mary College said the decision "really challenges the perception that the court is above partisan politics." University of Virginia law professor John Jeffries said "it's hard to think the court has covered itself with glory."

Author and high court observer Anthony G. Amsterdam wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "The important point to notice in the presidential election case is not simply the Supreme Court's abandonment of any pretense at behaving like a court of law. It is not even the sickening hypocrisy and insincere constitutional posturing with which the court's foray into president-making is dressed up. It is that the court finally has revealed unmistakably what it does all the time and usually gets away with: masking result-driven, political, unprincipled decisions in the guise of obedience to rules of law which the justices feel completely free to twist and retwist to suit their purposes."

There's no doubt that Rehnquist and his colleagues have felt the sting. He began his 2000 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary with a defensive and rare paragraph when writing:

"Despite the seesaw aftermath of the presidential election, we are once again witnessing an orderly transition of power from one presidential administration to another. This presidential election, however, tested our constitutional system in ways it has never been tested before. The Florida State courts, the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States became involved in a way that one hopes will seldom, if ever, be necessary in the future."

Again, as in past reports, he then launched into the need for additional judicial compensation. Congress should respond to the needs of our courts and, despite personal feelings about the recent presidential selection by the Rehnquist Court, should treat the federal judiciary as an honorable and vital third branch of government. Our courts, from the districts up to the Supreme Court, can only survive and improve with the financial and moral support they need and deserve.

Now is not the time for disappointed Democrats to act like House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and his colleagues. DeLay said that "the judges need to be intimidated," and he threatened several with impeachment when disagreeing with some decisions. He went on to say "we have a whole big file cabinet full (of names). We are receiving nominations from all across the country of judges that could be prime candidates for impeachment." DeLay claims that his fellow Republicans loved his anti-judge ranting and "they think I'm god on this one."

Never should reasonable men and women even be tempted to act like DeLay and his Republican bullies, who have been using the courts as a whipping boy whenever disappointed by their decisions. Rehnquist, in his report, writes, "Becoming a federal judge is an honor and a privilege, and requires a devotion to public service. But even the most devoted public servant should be fairly compensated."

I have to believe most Americans agree with this Rehnquist opinion.

archive