Ideology, Morality and the Law

I've been a lawyer for many years.  A practicing lawyer has little time to devote to a review of the status of the law in general, being concerned with its application to certain circumstances.  So, my focus on the law and the legal system has usually been narrow--what law applies to a given matter, what does it say, how is it to the advantage or disadvantage of the client, is the judge experienced with such cases?

In order for the status of the law or legal system in general to rouse the concern of the practicing lawyer, some significant event must take place which "shocks the conscience" of an attorney.  That's a legal phrase used for the most part to refer to something egregious which provokes someone or something, usually a court, to call for or provide a remedy.  

It may be that the technology of our times, which allows for the communication of information and opinions instantly and in a ubiquitous fashion, brings such events to our attention more frequently than in the past, but I think that there are more and more instances of conduct on the part of lawyers and judges that shock the conscience than there have been in the past.

Consider the many lawyers who pursued baseless claims of fraud related to the 2020 election.  Consider the conduct of Justices of the Supreme Court which have been mentioned in this blog, news of which seems to appear on almost a daily basis, which raise questions of ethics and impartiality.  Consider the actions of a novice Federal District Court Judge ignoring the recommendations of senior judges that she should recuse herself from a matter in which the defendant appointed her to the federal bench, and the eagerness with which she delays the trial of the matter to the benefit of the defendant.  

Unfortunately, it's likely that corruption based on financial inducement has always been a feature of the legal system.  The extent of that corruption varies with time and place, but it would be foolish to think it has never been a factor.  It's also likely that the legal system benefits the rich and powerful more than it does others, and has always done so.

But I don't recall ideology (including religious ideology) playing so large and obvious a part in the law while I've been a lawyer, until lately.  There were complaints aplenty by conservatives regarding liberal judges, particularly during the 1960s, but ideology then wasn't broadcast, and indeed flaunted, like it is now. I suspect this is the case because the law is being treated by some of us more and more as enforcing and imposing a religious code of conduct, or at least one which purports to impose moral standards by law.  When that isn't expressly stated to be the motivation behind laws and legal decisions, those political agents perceived to favor particular moral standards are favored by them.

More and more we see reference made by legislators and judges to religion, and most especially the Christian religion.  Most recently, the State of Louisiana, admittedly never known for its tolerance or respect of minorities or their opinions in most instances, required by law that the Ten Commandments be displayed (if not brandished) in every public school room.  As noted elsewhere in this blog, a Supreme Court Justice has said he considers the function of the law to return the nation to godliness.  The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court justified a 19th century law banning abortion on the fact that the people of that State justly feared the wrath of God.  

H.L. Mencken, the legendary Sage of Baltimore, noted in the quote appearing atop this post that whoever attempts to impose moral conduct on others through the law is most likely a scoundrel.  I think this is true.  Those who claim that the law should be used to impose morality, I would maintain, don't do so because they wish to promote morality, but because they seek to impose rules which favor them, their beliefs, their property, their power, and control the conduct of others who may threaten them--including that of their children.  

History is full of moral hypocrisy; the self-proclaimed holy and self-righteous who are found to violate the code of conduct they claim should apply to humanity in general are common.  But the corrupt won't hesitate to question the morality of those who stand in their way or disagree with them.  

So the statements made by legislators and judges are more and more essentially a shrill condemnation of conduct they oppose on moral grounds, rather than a reasoned consideration of the rules of law and the circumstances, and the civil rights of others.  

 

When Judges are Pharisees

A Pharisee is defined by Google's Dictionary source identified as Oxford Languages as "a member of an ancient Jewish sect distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity."  The words "a self-righteous person" and "hypocrite" are also used in the definition.

When thinking of a Pharisee as so defined, I can't help but think of certain judges who at least purport to strictly observe traditional and written law and are sanctimonious.  Certain Justices of the Supreme Court as well, I blush to admit.

Recently. two of the Justices, and the spouse of one of them, made some remarks at a gathering of some kind of something called "the Supreme Court Historical Society" which were surreptitiously recorded by someone "posing as a conservative."  I'm not sure what's involved in posing as a conservative, but in this case it seems making statements against abortion and supportive of (Christian, presumably) religion sufficed for that purpose.  

The statements sufficed, at least, to elicit remarks from the Justice to the effect that the nation should be restored to "godliness" and was doomed to be ruled by the left or the right, no compromise being possible.  The Justice's spouse was more voluble, bemoaning the controversy over flags flown at the Alito properties, which she seems to find incomprehensible if not maliciously intended, and expressing condemnation of the LGBT community and Pride month.  She expressed the hope of flying a flag featuring the Sacred Heart of Jesus, evidently in response to those in the LGBT community or those who support them.

I don't know why anyone would consider the emblem of the Sacred Heart an expression of condemnation of the LGBT community or of anyone, for that matter.  By my understanding, it's used to represent Christ's love and compassion.  It takes a peculiar kind of person to believe it represents intolerance and exclusion.

But Pharisees are peculiar.  At least, the Gospels indicate Christ thought them to be.  The picture at the top of this post shows the Pharisee and the tax collector, who figure in a parable from the Gospel of Luke.  In that parable, the Pharisee thanks God for making him a good man, unlike the tax collector and other mean and sinful folk.  The tax collector confesses his sins to God, and begs for his mercy.  The Pharisee is full of pride and is self-righteous, and is condemned by Christ as a result.

Like Pharisees, there are judges (and others) who believe they know what godliness is, and think themselves uniquely qualified to know what it is and impose it on others.  They ascribe their own limitations of intelligence and character to God.  Their vision is a narrow one, their sympathies are congested; there are no questions that are open to inquiry; all has been answered.  Oddly, such judges abhor judging.  What's to be judged?  It's merely a question of knowing what's already been decided (though not if it was decided anew--what's been decided was decided long ago and cannot be improved upon.

The other Justice was intelligent enough to resist the temptation to be pharisaical, and it may be hoped even that he isn't a Pharisee.  Pharisees, as we see from the parable, like to expound on their own godliness.  Pharisees like some judges and others, are exhibitionists of a sort.  They are shamelessly good.  They're so convinced of their righteousness they think it should be displayed, exposed to all.

Poor, Poor Pitiful US(A)

Demagogues have been the subjects of contempt since ancient times.  But as worthy as they are of disdain, and as able as they may be in persuading those who follow them, we shouldn't neglect to note that those that do are themselves pitiful creatures at best, and despicable at their worst.

Consider the reaction of the myrmidons and lackeys of the most prominent demagogue of our times to his recent conviction after a long jury trial.  His own reaction is predictably self-pitying, whiny and hyperbolic, so dully repetitive in its wild and baseless claims that it can't even qualify as outrageous, and is more rightly considered monotonous.  Their reaction, though is staggeringly craven, imbecilic, malicious and irresponsible.

Base self-interest may motivate the miserable politicians and media personalities who "assume the position" whenever he's near them and repeat his claims slavishly.  They're shameless in their pandering, even to the point of dressing as he does as we've seen--blue suits, white shirts, red ties (and of course brown noses).  They resemble the small duplicates Snow Miser and Heat Miser from The Year Without a Santa Claus. One would think that if they had any responsibility and intelligence they'd recognize their condemnation of the entire justice system can undermine our system of government, or even if they're entirely self-interested they'd at least know that in other circumstances such a view could endanger themselves.  Those whose worship of him isn't founded on self-interest and greed combined with cowardice, though, are more disturbing and alarming.

It's difficult to understand their fascination with someone who is so completely a fraud and lacking in charisma (unless a caricature of a used car salesman can be said to be charismatic).  How is it that they believe whatever he says, regardless of the fact that he never provides evidence in support of his claims?  How can they have become so invested in someone who is so self-absorbed, who considers only his own interests to the exclusion of others, as to call those who oppose him traitors?  Are they so gullible...so stupid...as to associate him with the good of the country?

It's been noted already by many that his followers resemble cult members.  I'm unfamiliar with the psychology of such people.  I would think they must be fearful, ignorant, needy, angry, irrational, easily led and dread the need to think, but beyond that I can't guess what manner of phobias or neuroses plague them.  But like the followers of such as the Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and the fellow who was the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult (I can't remember his name) they present a danger to themselves and others.  

I don't know whether a cult in that sense exists in this case, but unthinking adherence to a sociopathic individual is perilous.  

We get the president we deserve, I think.  We get the government we deserve.  If we now think an autocracy of sorts is desirable, we're going to get it.  It would be a sad end to a remarkable nation created by remarkable men and women, though; a truly experimental effort to create a government that would secure most civil liberties and yet function in a manner as to dominate the world in many respects for many years.  Now it appears that most of us want to be dominated by someone else.  Not another nation, of course, but to be dominated by someone we're eager to worship.