Fools Rush In

Angels in government have a long history; Jefferson asked if men could not be trusted with self governance were kings not men but angels entrusted to govern others.  Lincoln urged us to be friends seeking the better angels of our nature.  Madison explained that because we are not angels, we require "auxiliary precautions" to guarantee fair government.

It is in celebration of democracy that the system of checks and balances emerged in which the independence of the judiciary ensures a government of laws and not men.  It is precisely because we are human, full of flaws, that we require restraint which grew here in the form of an independent and impartial judiciary. 

Judicial tenure, however, requires good behavior; actions contrary to law and decency shall not be rewarded.  And, so there are in place mechanisms by which to challenge the impartiality and independence of individual judges.  In recognition of the notion of an independent judiciary, the recent Massachusetts case protects from scrutiny a judge’s thoughts and notes about individual cases.  Here in Massachusetts, the Suffolk County (Boston) District Attorney has accused a judge of bias -   according to the prosecutor, he rules in favor of defendants too often to be impartial.

To clarify: the Executive Branch has declared that the Judicial Branch protects individual liberty too much to be fair to the interests of the Commonwealth...despite the trust the people place in all of government to protect liberty.  Prior challenges to sitting judges have occurred, but for the opposite reason.  In 1973, Judge Troy was disbarred by the Supreme Judicial Court for abusing his office by, among other things, depriving criminal defendants of their constitutional rights, hiring but not paying lawyers who appeared before him, and neglecting his actual, judicial duties.   It was after Judge Margaret Scott was awarded the Kinlock Award by the Massachusetts Juvenile Police Officers Association bestowed upon those demonstrating, “excellence in his or her field of endeavor; that endeavor must be associated with our young people... [those] endowed with understanding, compassion and patience and a willingness to do more than the next person for tomorrow’s adults" that she was sanctioned for depriving those appearing before her of their individual liberties.   Understanding, compassion and patience apparently includes making up laws to convict the innocent, charging unlawful fines, and removing terrified children from the care of their loving parents.

Past judicial challenges involved the deprivation of Constitutional rights.  The current charge against the judge who shall remain nameless  may be the first time that judicial protection of liberty faces scrutiny.  Even if we put aside the question of whether the Executive Branch even has the authority to challenge the Judiciary - which may very well be prohibited by the Massachusetts Constitution Pt. 1 Art. 30, it is important to note that the judge in question was appointed by a former federal prosecutor and a Republican governor not known to be “soft on crime”.  The Executive Branch’s current disappointment in this particular judge’s interpretation of the law is less credible than Eisenhower Republicans’ disappointment in the way Earl Warren understood the federal Constitution.   But even they did not investigate him for bias due to decisions from his Court.

American history decries the prosecutors' actions against a sitting judge.  As noted in the recent opinion, John Adams spoke highly of an independent judiciary; but, he had to be disappointed in the case that assured the concept.  Politics are a nasty business and it has ever been thus.  Mr. Adams’ Federalist party reviled Mr. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party.  The peaceful transition of power from one to the other in 1801 is still a remarkable feat about which the United States should be proud.

The rivalry, the animosity and the disgust, indeed led to one of the greatest legal decisions of this nation’s history ensuring the independence and the impartiality of the federal judiciary which we understand now to be a fundamental aspect of all American government.  Adams lost a bitterly contested election to his former friend come rival, Thomas Jefferson.  The Adamses could not wait to leave the swamp of the Capitol and head home to Peacefield.  As one of his last acts, President Adams appointed several justices of the peace and left their signed commissions to be delivered.  No one did so and President Jefferson famously ordered them not to be delivered.  Mr. Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, obliged. 

One particular appointee, Mr. Marbury, was so enraged at being denied his commission that he sued for it directly in the United States Supreme Court under a legislative provision so permitting.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was none other than Adams’ appointee John Marshall who, like Adams, was an ardent Federalist.  Indeed, his appointment to the bench was part of a Federalist Party power grab - the Midnight Judges Act.  We forget how young and vulnerable this nation really was.  And, we forget that those who founded this nation were men and not angels.

Surely, Marbury presumed, Justice Marshall would see fit to grant him his commission.  So, it was an historic and game-changing moment when the Court ruled otherwise.  On the one hand, Justice Marshall minced no words chastising the president for failing to make good on his predecessor’s appointments; the commissions were signed and ready to be delivered.  On the other hand, Congress erred in its statute granting right to sue directly in the Supreme Court as Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in limited circumstances.  Marbury v. Madison’s almost quaint and petty circumstances permitted the Court to become Supreme in the truest sense; there was no fear of retribution when Marshall criticized a sitting president or corrected Congress or determined a result with which no party was happy.  Whether popular or unpopular, Justice Marshall ensured an independent judiciary with this brilliant split of the baby.

Marbury, justified in his anger and his cause, lost as the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.  Had Marbury sought his commission in an inferior court, he likely would have won, but he hedged his bets on the Federalist court.  John Adams had to rue the rushed appointment of Justice Marshall, right?  Maybe at first, as moments in nascent nations tend to try men’s souls.   But, many years after this fateful decision, in a testament to his own character, Adams declared that John Marshall was a gift to the nation and appointing him was one of his proudest accomplishments.

Putting this history into context, the current investigation of a judge sitting in a busy, low level trial court is an attack on justice itself.  American courts are courts of the people.  They are not arms of the prosecutor or platforms for the powerful.  They are, indeed, a place where individual liberties should be celebrated. 

Today, the Executive branch, in the form of the District Attorney is fighting a petty, undignified battle about which John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be ashamed.  For all of their differences and for all of their human foibles, our Framers genuinely believed in the rights established in the Constitution; we in Massachusetts are fortunate that one of these men was the architect of our own government.  Losing a battle in defense of democracy is noble; the Framers understood that men could more easily be likened to fools than angels and yet trusted people to do the best they could, allowing for history to answer the question of whether men could govern themselves without a monarch.

When powerful people in any branch of government abuse authority in order to deprive individuals, especially the most vulnerable among us, of their right to be heard, to find fairness and fight for liberty, we have a duty to halt that practice.  The strength of this nation rests on a foundation balancing rights, responsibilities and freedom.  Thus, when a judge of any court protects individual liberty and seeks to find the better angels in all who appear before him or her, that judge is a gift to the nation.