Part-Time Pundit: A Case of Double Standards

« Ending Corporate Welfare | Main | DI Column Up: Iconoclastic Reactionaries »

August 3, 2006

A Case of Double Standards

Compare and contrast these two cases:

The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.

The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.

What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.

The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.

Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.

So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.

In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.

It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.

Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.

Posted by John Bambenek at August 3, 2006 3:05 PM