Every time a judge hands down a controversial decision, it is parsed by pundits suddenly deemed constitutional scholars when their qualifications for such a title involve little more than having the loudest, and most outrageous, opinion. With the high number of unemployed law school graduates, you would think the networks could afford to stock a low-cost stable of relatively capable young lawyers to interpret, say, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the most controversial provision in President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.
Nope.
When the Supreme Court largely upheld the so-called Affordable Care Act, CNN instead reported that it had overturned the law. Fox News followed. So did a large percentage of social media, including me. It’s been called CNN’s “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment, referring to the Chicago Tribune’s front page in 1948 that wrongly declared Truman had lost the presidential election.
When it became clear that the individual mandate requiring most Americans to acquire health insurance had been upheld, the outrage on the right was palpable. “Unconstitutional!” was yelled from the rooftops. And those yelling may be right, especially those who actually studied law, or, even better, constitutional law. Unfortunately, most of them hadn’t.
Lawyers – and, by extension, judges – are among the most despised of professions (media also ranks highly), but everyone still wants to be one. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the “law-school class of 2011 had little better than a 50-50 shot of landing a job as a lawyer within nine months of receiving a degree.” And young attorneys need high-paying jobs to begin paying off big student loans.
Those who do land a job at a firm, become a partner, and are then elected or appointed to a judgeship are considered the highest performers. Their depth of knowledge regarding the state and U.S. constitutions is, in theory, the most comprehensive. They are the nation’s umpires.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush and widely respected by Republicans, is now considered a traitor for siding with the “liberal” wing of the Supreme Court in upholding the individual mandate. Judges, if a certain party appoints them, are now expected to toe that party line. And when they don’t, a country of amateur lawyers – few of them with law degrees – explain why they are dead wrong.
When electing judges in Montana, our state continues to maintain the myth that these positions are nonpartisan. Political parties cannot endorse nor spend money on candidates. The Sanders County Republican Central Committee wants to change that. The GOP group says the rule infringes on its free speech and would like to support candidates who “share its ideological views.”
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena refused to block the rule, but did set a trial for September, when Sanders County Republicans will get a chance to argue why elections for state judges should be partisan. When will it end?
If local and state judges are elected with Rs and Ds attached to their names, will we then advocate similar criteria for federal judges? Will they need to be elected, instead of appointed, and allowed to accept money and support from political parties and third-party groups? Imagine a world where we can give money to the umpires and still expect them to call a fair game.
Would a Republican judge treat Sanders County Republicans differently? What about a Democrat in Missoula County? Judges, especially those deciding on hot-button constitutional matters, pretending to be nonpartisan isn’t working. But the alternatives are no better.
Like so many others, I’m simply an armchair quarterback. But I do appreciate foregoing that law degree I once thought about pursuing.