A Case of Double Standards
Compare and contrast these two cases:
The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a “full and fair ballot choice” for the voters.
The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.
What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.
The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.
Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.
So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.
In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.
It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.
Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.
John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois.
Possibly related posts...
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a freelance columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange. | More from John Bambenek
Stumble It!
“this administration is more interested in maintaining power and smearing the dems”
They don’t have to smear the Dems. The Dems do it to themselves. Kind of like when the local university advertises: “We are an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.” It sounds nice, but it’s obviously farcical.
“Not to say that the dems wouldn’t do the same thing with total control of both elected branches”
The Dems do it without control of any branches. Maybe they’re just wired that way.
I do welcome the departure of Delay, and thinks it’s silly to force him to appear on the ballot. I have a lot of conservative views, but think this administration is more interested in maintaining power and smearing the dems than in actually governing effectively. Not to say that the dems wouldn’t do the same thing with total control of both elected branches. Where’s Ross Perot when you need him?
roadkill1965
Too much electric koolaid, dude. It’s made you blind.
Good on you John! Thanks for pointing out this blatant double standard.
When I lived in the US (for 9 years), I never ceased to be amazed and disgusted by the double standards of the political left.
They talked of openness to new ideas and diversity out of one side of their mouthes while they continually denigrated and put-down anyone who disagreed with their views.
I can recall countless ocassions where my leftist work mates would vilify all of the Americans who did not live along the eastern and western coasts of the USA. They constantly referred to them as red-kneck morons who had trouble tying together their shoe laces.
Then, with out even stopping to draw breath, they would criticise put some conservative politician down for not sharing their “diversity” of views.
These people actually thought the Sun shown out through their butts and that their job in life was to enlighten the “illiterate masses”.
What a bunch of wankers!
So let me get this straight, because the GOP is corrupt, that excuses the Dems for forcing onto the ballot a Republican that is under **indictment** after he has bowed out of the race?
I’d think if you really believe that the GOP is the most corrupt administration since Nixon, you’d welcome the departure of Delay, not prolong his presence.
You’ve gotta be kidding. Accusing the Dems of being partisan, when the Reps have run the most hateful, divisive, unconstitutional government since the Nixon administration? I’m not a big fan of the democrats, but they sure are the lesser of two evils when compared to the republicans! This article was rediculous.