You can shout until you’re hoarse about the double standard in press coverage of the American political scene, but nothing changes. In the eyes of the mass media, a conservative is always an “ultraconservative” and there is no such thing as an “ultraliberal.”

When Republicans promote their own party line they are being “partisan,” but when they accept Democratic ideology they are “centrists.” On the other hand, if a Democrat’s behavior is “partisan” according to the dictionary definition of that term, the news reports do not invoke that adjective.

So when the Supreme Court of Florida made a grossly political bid to revive the hopes of Democratic presidential contender Al Gore, the media coverage was straightforward; the court’s decision was relayed in cold factual terms, with few adjectives employed. But when the US Supreme Court finally blew the whistle on their colleagues in Florida, we were treated to the full double-descriptive treatment, with adverbs modifying each adjective.

The decision in the US Supreme Court was divided. How was it divided? It was sharply divided. Was the Court’s decision split, then? Oh yes it was deeply split. And it was disputed; hotly disputed. So the resulting decision could surely be classified as controversial, in fact highly controversial.

Confidence in the system
Well, by now you know that the Republican candidate won the election. (He quickly called for bipartisan cooperation, which made me very nervous.) But you also know that the US Supreme Court decision was bitterly contested, so wouldn’t it be fair to expect that news reports would summarize both the majority opinion and the dissent?

Before sitting down to write this column I scanned the stories on the US Supreme Court decision, as carried by a dozen different American outlets. In every case, the first full sentence quoted in the story came not from the majority decision, but from the dissent. Different outlets selected different sentences, but let me reproduce the lines that figured in all of the citations:

It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Impartial guardians
Forgive me, Justice Stevens, but I disagree. The “backbone” of the rule of law is not our confidence in the judge; it is our confidence in the law. If we could go to sleep at night confident that the law will mean tomorrow what it means today, we would not have spent several weeks worrying about the outcome of the presidential election; we would not have become a nation obsessed with the interpretation of “dimpled chads.”

But we Americans can no longer be fully confident in the rule of law, because the meaning of the laws keeps changing to suit the predilections of the judges. If you had your way, Justice Stevens, the electoral laws of Florida would have been changed—not by the vote of the people’s elected representatives, but by the fiat of your judicial colleagues. And if they changed this year, they could change again next year—or as soon as a different ideological cohort of jurists gained a majority on the court.

In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal—precisely at the time, Justice Stevens, when you won your seat on the Supreme Court—the leitmotif of the American civic religion was that we live under “a government of laws, not of men.” Is that really true? Do we agree that the will of the people, codified in law, reigns supreme, or do you believe that any law can be trumped by the opinions of a few jurists? What is the source of judicial authority, if it is not the confidence that judges themselves will adhere to the law? Are you worried that the American people might peek under the judicial robes, and discover that the emperor is wearing no other clothes?

In case this argument seems too subtle, let me be more direct. We have been instructed to worry about the people in Florida (real or imaginary) whose votes might not have been counted in the presidential race of 2000. But I find myself wondering about the 30 million American souls who have been deprived of life—not by law, but by the decision of a few US Supreme Court justices. Were their votes counted? Were their voices heard?

Back to Catholic World Report - January 2001 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page