To the editor:
No matter what side you have been on during the Presidential election and thereafter, it has been and continues to be a rough ride. Each side has its talking points which are calculated to generate political support, whether they are true or not. Such is the nature of the political thicket. It has been this way since the founding of the country.
This past Tuesday evening, I listened to a different type of conversation; the oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals about the President’s Executive Order on immigration. Although many may say “how boring,” it was refreshing and instructive. It showed how facts, although stubborn things, do exist and remain critical to the proper functioning of the nation. It again demonstrated that truth is a core value of the nation. Today’s political discourse, like that of the past, has tried to minimize the importance of facts and truth in a quest for political power. However, the judicial discourse during the argument reminded us that these values are central to the proper functioning of our democracy.
Members of the executive and legislative branches of the government can say virtually anything they want to advance their agenda. However, lawyers in court have the obligation to the court to state the facts and truth as shown by the record before the court. On numerous occasions, the three judges on the appellate panel grilled both sides on what the record actually showed and the lawyers were careful to only represent what it did show.
What a breath of fresh air. No “alternative facts”; no making up the facts to score political points (e.g., the “Bowling Green Massacre”, the largest crowd to attend an Inauguration or Democratic overreaching). Instead of hyperbole and showmanship, you had reason.
I am not suggesting that the judicial system is beyond criticism. It is also political in the sense that the President appoints federal judges and it is expected that his appointments will share his judicial philosophy. This is part of our political system. This is why there are supreme battles over appointments to the Supreme Court. Some judges may be what has been described as “politicians in black robes,” but the huge majority take their judicial responsibilities extremely seriously. Different judges in a case will reach different conclusions, not because some are absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong, but because sometimes reason exists on both sides in our constitutional democracy.
Obviously, that political thicket cannot and should not operate like a court of law. We all need to fight for what we believe. However, when political excesses create a constitutional or legal mess, it is reassuring to know that there is a branch of government where facts, truth and reason still matter. So when you have had it with all the politicians and talking heads pushing the baloney at you, come on over and have a beer with me as we listen to an appellate argument!
Sincerely,
Steven Perlmutter
90 Todd Pond Rd.
Perlmutter is a semi-retired trial and appellate lawyer who hosted a 12-part Council on Aging series of talks in 2015 about Michael Sandel’s “Justice” course at Harvard.
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.