Courts decide law, not ideology

When my beloved babushka passed away five weeks ago, she left behind memories of a country where political speech was limited to the official orthodoxy. Communism dyed every corner of Soviet society the same monotonous red, so that Russians couldn't find an escape from politics and ideology anywhere.

The genius of the American system lies not only in the First Amendment, which effectively guarantees that our political institutions reflect the full spectrum of political opinion, but also in those institutions where ideology is most emphatically unwelcome.

I'm thinking of three recent legal issues which beg their audience to leave their agendas at the door and think as judges rather than activists.

The first revolves around the case of the Anglican Rev. Don Armstrong, whose breakaway congregation was recently ordered to relinquish its building to the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado. The story behind the split creaks with ideological tension.

Armstrong says that he left the Episcopal church over the ordination of a homosexual bishop (the story social conservatives tend to accept) while the Episcopal Diocese suggests that Armstrong left to avoid being defrocked over accusations of embezzlement (the version preferred by social liberals).

The judge's ruling (which dealt with the ownership of the church building, not with any criminal accusations) sent shockwaves through the court of public opinion. Liberals said, "Take that, you filthy homophobic rat!" Conservatives groaned about activist judges.

But when we set aside theology, ideology and every other extralegal consideration, there's no reason to conclude that politics colored the court's decision. For that, people on both sides of the aisle can be thankful.

Just as conservatives shouldn't see legal activism behind every decision that offends their political sensibilities, liberals shouldn't look to the courts to carry out political hit jobs.

Both responses demean and degrade an institution that, when it works as it should, provides a welcome reprieve from ideological strife.

For analogous reasons, we should resist the temptation to think of the Ward Churchill case in political terms. Churchill is the former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado who wrote an essay comparing the World Trade Center victims to a Nazi named Adolf Eichmann. Soon after that scandal broke, Churchill was accused of plagiarism. An academic commission eventually stripped him of his tenure.

Churchill is now suing to get his job back, basing his defense on the claim that the "little Eichmanns" scandal was the real reason for his dismissal, and arguing only in passing that he was not, in fact, guilty of plagiarism. The crux of his legal argument assumes a political conspiracy and plays on the political sympathies of a certain segment of the public.

Most people were pleased when Churchill was fired, and understandably so.

Nevertheless, we shouldn't wish our political perspective on any court entrusted with discovering truth and falsehood, and then applying the rule of law to its findings.

Churchill was fired not because he's a venomous moron, but because he's a liar and a cheat guilty of academic misconduct.

And if he wasn't a liar and a cheat, then we shouldn't expect American courts to perform acts of ideological vengeance.

The final legal issue raised in recent days concerns the question of whether Gov. Bill Ritter's mill levy freeze constituted a tax increase without the voters' approval, which would violate the TABOR amendment of the Colorado Constitution. Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that it did not, which prompted Ritter to say, "The real winners today are Colorado's children." Plenty of other liberals who think we need higher taxes felt the same way.

The Supreme Court does not, however, exist in order to determine what's best for the children. Ritter's reaction, while predictable, offers zero insight into whether the justices reached the proper legal conclusion. By politicizing a legal decision, Ritter did a disservice to everybody who looks to the courts as a refuge from the ideological frenzy that characterizes the other two branches of government.

-

Cole, of Colorado Springs, is a writer, translator and political organizer. Readers can reach him at dancoloradan@yahoo.com.