Clarence Thomas got a pat on the back the other day in Britain’s Economist. Critics complain “that he is cruel,” observed an unsigned essay on the Supreme Court justice and his new memoir, My Grandfather’s Son. “Rather than seeking justice, he coldly applies the law as it is written. To conservatives, that is his chief virtue. Judges who conjure up rights that are not mentioned in the constitution–such as the right to an abortion created by Roe v Wade in 1973–undermine the rule of law.” The writer sided with Thomas. “It is up to lawmakers to make laws, he reckons,” went the essay’s conclusion. “If the voters don’t want change, politicians should persuade them, not just keep their heads down and hope that unelected judges will make the hard choices for them.”
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Thomas helpfully noted that time limits are statutory and Congress can change them if it wants.
Bowles v. Russell is a good illustration of how the federal courts at the moment are unusually enamored with the letter of the law. This is the wrong time to shrug off a particularly loathsome law with the thought, “Surely, they didn’t mean it the way it reads.” Maybe they didn’t, but if it’s what they wrote, we should assume that’s how the courts will interpret it.
“With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act . . . ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike,” read Project Censored’s report. It faulted the media, particularly the Times, for giving “false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act–such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections.”
Reading the passage carefully, you might surmise that even though a military commission would set your punishment, a civilian court would decide whether you were guilty in the first place. Sorry, that doesn’t seem to be the case. The passage appears in a portion of the law entitled “Crimes triable by military commissions.” Parry thinks you should assume that an administration that decides you’re objecting too loudly to a war it’s fighting will consider itself authorized to arrest you and turn you over to the military for trial and punishment.
Hey, that’s us! thought Roenigk. He sounded an alarm, alerting the Reader and every other paper he could think of that’s dropped off in stacks, and also such worthy bystanders as the Illinois Press Association and the ACLU. He did some reporting, identified Alderman Manny Flores as the ordinance’s principal architect, and got Flores to agree to discuss modifying the ordinance so that the distribution of legitimate papers such as Roenigk’s wouldn’t be unduly inhibited. And he went to press. “Rogue Newspaper,” read the headline on the front page story in the October 10-16 issue of Inside. “City Hall Bans Distribution of Free Newspapers.” And then the lead, in big bold type: “Beware, reading this newspaper may make you a partner to a crime.”
