ConfirmThem

By Irishlaw Posted in Uncategorized — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

James Taranto of the WSJ's Best of the Web offers some thoughts on criminal violence versus reasonable checks on the judiciary:

Someone who responds to a court action with violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law--and indeed with extra vigor, for such attacks are an assault not only on individuals but on the rule of law itself. This is true regardless of the substance of the case at hand. The rule of law requires that we respect the process of justice, which means the authority of judges and juries--even when we disagree with the outcome, even when the outcome is manifestly mistaken or unjust.

Some self-styled champions of the rule of law, however, are acting in counterproductive and antidemocratic ways. Although the judicial system is designed to resist the political passions of the moment, it is subject to various democratic checks. The First Amendment gives individuals the right to criticize judges and the justice system. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the law, to begin the process of changing the Constitution, and to impeach judges. And of course the process for selecting federal judges rests in the hands of elected politicians: the president and the Senate.

Defenders of judicial authority have, for a combination of partisan and institutional reasons, been denying the legitimacy of all these means of influence . . . . All Americans should stand against political violence, which is a serious problem though mercifully also a rare one. Standing against democracy is something else entirely.