The importance of the rule of law
Apparently a lot of people don’t understand the theory of “Rule of Law, not Rule of Man,” and why it’s so important to this country.
Let’s try to explain it this way: in baseball, the hitter gets 3 strikes before he’s out and the pitcher gets 4 balls before the batter gets on base. That’s the law. It applies to Albert Pujols and the 20-year-old rookie pitcher in his first major league game. However, an umpire with “empathy” and the power to change the law can say that’s not fair to the rookie pitcher facing Pujols with the bases loaded, so, Mr. Pujols, you only get 2 strikes in this situation.
You may really like that if you’re the pitcher, not so much if you’re Pujols. Now, let’s say it’s 5 years later and that rookie pitcher is a Cy Young winner. He’s now facing a rookie hitter in his first major league at-bat with the bases loaded, same umpire. Umpire says this isn’t fair and says the hitter gets 4 strikes this time.
Under the rule of law, it’s 4 balls, 3 strikes and it’s always that way. Under the rule of man, it’s variable, depending on the circumstances. That’s why conservatives champion the rule of law. Liberals, allegedly more “empathetic” to the “downtrodden” want judges who will change the rules allegedly to benefit those groups. The problem is that you’re “downtrodden” today, but “priveleged”, through your own hard work, 5 years from now. So you benefit from the “empathy” today and it bites you in the butt 5 years from now.
We conservatives think it’s better to have law that’s not variable depending on the whims of the current umpire, or what group is in favor at the moment. For another thing, that “empathy” could well depend on what group contributed the most to the umpire’s campaign fund.
Tom Jeffrey
St. Louis County
Tom,
This is an argument that goes back to the earliest days of the Republic, when the Supreme Court, in Marbury v Madison, ruled that IT was the final arbiter of the US Constitution. Since then, the Court has all too often MADE law rather than applied it. In doing so, it overrides the will of the people as expressed in laws passed by our elected representatives, and threatens our democracy. To me, Judge Sotomayor’s most troubling remarks are those expressing a belief that it is the purview of the courts to “make policy”.
Good letter Tom: A pragmatic note. I play golf with a retired judge, who, as he puts it, has had the misfortune of encountering Judge Sotomayor. He is disgusted with a lot of her decisions and opinions, but actually favors her confirmation becaue he says she is a real intellectual lightweight and the conservatives will be able to roll her when then need her vote.
Excellent analogy Tom. Simple enough a kids could understand it. Textbook definition of layman’s terms.
“Excellent analogy Tom. Simple enough a kid could understand it.
— gbones”
Too bad the liberals still wont get it…..
Though I do believe that the Supreme Court should start handing down decisions that benefit minorities, in no way do I think they should be getting involved in baseball.
The Libtard
Tom
Interesting concept.
So what rule of law were the courts following when they said separate but equal was legal?
What rule of law where the courts following when they said the poll taxes were equal and unless your grandfather had the right to vote prior to the law then you had to pay a voting tax?
What rule of the law were the courts following for 60 years when the majority of the population of Tennessee lived in the cities but the state was allowed to keep a proportioning system that was in place when the majority of the population was in rural area’s?
What rule of law did the courts follow for more the 40 years in the state of Florida that said if you did not commit a murder then you were not entitled to an attorney unless you paid for it.
Where is the law that said that the police can search your home without a search warrant.
There are many other examples, so I am willing to allow people a chance to explain how those laws were so clear that all of this could go on for a long time with judicial consent.
If all laws are so clear I am sure you can point to the law and explain why the courts for years kept enforcing the law.
Liberals continually brought up “the rule of law” when discussing our use of torture. You didn’t seem to mind changing the rules there, Tom.
On the idea of the courts making “policy”.
Consider this:
The law, in it’s bizarre writing, seems to say two different things. Two lawyers argue before a judge, and the judge listens to the arguments and hands down a ruling. That ruling becomes precedent, and it becomes policy: the courts ruled that law “x” says “y”.
Congress (and the state legislatures as well) are very good at writing law that is NOT clear and plain to understand.
The above comment applies to all judges, not just liberal ones. I’ve been on a Jury in local court. One of the statements of the Judge was something like this: “your job, as the jury is to determine if the accused violated the law that I WILL GIVE TO YOU (emphasis mine)”. In plain words, then it was clear: the judge will tell the jury what the law says. In the matter under dispute, even if either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer told us what the law said, THEIR opinions didn’t matter. What mattered was what the JUDGE said.
So, the argument isn’t really appropriate. The law is purposefully vague when written, and judges have been deciding what the law says since day one.
How does this emphasis on the importance of the Rule of Law apply to what went on in the Bush white house with signing statements et al? Can the President decide what the law says?
The Supreme court does not make law it determines whether law written by the legislature and signed by the chief executive conforms to the supreme law of the land, the constitution. Marbury v Madison merely confirmed the obvious intent of the framers. It is the court’s duty to override “the will of the people” when the the will of the people as expressed through unconstitutional legislation violates the civil rights of the individual. Without Marbury v Madison the independence of the court is lost and the Bill of Rights itself becomes meaningless.