Ask
Auntie Pinko
April
3, 2003
Dear
Auntie Pinko,
I am being told that only liberals try to change policy
and law through lawsuits instead of doing it through the courts.
Can you give me some examples of conservatives who have
done such a thing?
Cory,
Whose home is the Internet
Dear Cory,
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. When you say "through
lawsuits instead of through the courts," I can't figure out
how the courts would be involved without a lawsuit.
For the most part, courts don't rule on matters unless they
are presented via a lawsuit initially. Higher courts may rule
on appeal, but that means that some court initially ruled
on a suit.
Perhaps you mean, "through lawsuits and the courts, instead
of through the legislature?" This is an issue that is often
discussed among liberals and conservatives both.
Who on earth is telling you that only liberals try to change
policy and law through lawsuits, and where have they been
that they haven't heard of the University of Michigan case?
Conservatives have always tried to use the courts to roll
back social progress, just as liberals attempt to use the
courts to make social progress.
When Mr. Pat Robertson's organization files a lawsuit trying
to overturn San Francisco's domestic partnership law, he and
his followers are trying to change policy and law through
lawsuits. When the American Center for Law and Justice (a
conservative group) files suit against the City of Newburyport
for removing commemorative bricks with religious messages
on them from a public walkway, they are trying to change policy
and law through lawsuits.
What intrigues Auntie Pinko about your question, Cory, is
the implication behind such assertions - specifically, the
implication that using lawsuits to change public policy is
necessarily a bad thing. I'm not at all sure that is the case.
In fact, I think the availability of the courts as a resource
for citizens trying to shape our political, economic, and
social destiny is something that we should cherish. It's something
in which we should take pride, as a society that enables political
self-determination for its citizenry.
By giving us three branches of government, our Constitution
gives us three avenues, as citizens, to put our aspirations
for the best possible society into law. While the legislative
branch is the most direct route, and we should always try
to start there when a change needs to be made, it can't always
accomplish what we want. There will always be corruption in
every branch of government, but by having three branches,
we give ourselves a safety net - not every branch will always
be corrupt in the same degree or the same way.
And there are other reasons why we need multiple routes for
citizens to effect change. The Executive and Legislative branches
of our government are elected by a majority vote. But there
have been times in our nation's history when a majority of
the citizens voting did not necessarily have good public policy
or even moral justification on their side. A large number
of my neighbors were denied the right to vote for many years,
because a majority of the citizens who could vote didn't want
them to vote.
We should never stop working to make every branch of government
more responsive to the needs and wishes of all of our citizens.
We should never stop being vigilant against corruption. But
we should never limit the access of citizens, no matter how
small the minority they represent, or how removed from the
mainstream their views might be, to the courts as a recourse
for changing policy by interpreting law in the light of our
Constitution.
So, do liberals "use" the courts to "advance an agenda?"
Goodness, yes, of course! Do conservatives? They certainly
do! And in both cases, Auntie Pinko says, "Good for them,
that's part of what keeps America a free country!"
Remember, your "frivolous" lawsuit is my deeply-held conviction
about what is right and wrong. The cost of maintaining a viable,
effective judicial system is definitely going up, as the diversity
of opinions and backgrounds in our country continues to grow.
But that is a legitimate cost of self-determination; of maintaining
a free citizenry in a free country. Freedom is never cheap.
Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Cory!
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal
at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their
talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand
those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has
an answer for everything.
Just send e-mail to: [email protected],
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko"
in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.
|