The endless questioning of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan caused me to think of some local Judges and appraise their work in the office. There are many good ones, but three came to mind for their excellence: Judges Hugh Hayes, Dan Monaco, and Harold Smith. I've known these Judges well and they're who I'd want to decide my fate if I was ever called to accountability. And there were times when I could've been.
Why? There's an old maxim in the legal business: "If you're innocent, ask for a Judge to decide your case. If you're guilty, ask for a jury trial." A good Judge will see the truth. Juries can be manipulated clowns in a judicial circus.
Now Ms Kagan is participating in another circus, the obligatory hearings to determine if she is fit to sit on the nation's highest bench. And most of the questions are politically motivated, not geared to determine her suitability. It shouldn't make any difference if she's pro or con abortion, or guns, or homosexuality, or RC and Moon Pies. It should only be important that she is fair and decides constitutional issues in an unbiased manner.
Still, it's hard to predict. Earl Warren, California's most savage prosecuting attorney, became a Weepy Wet Willie Liberal after he accepted his lifelong, no-control position on the Court.
We must, however, try to predict fairness and the only way to do that is to look at the nominee's rulings record as a Judge.
Whadda you mean she's never even been a judge. . . ? The only choice worse than that would be an egghead academic from Harvard.
No comments:
Post a Comment