A Case of Double Standards

Posted on August 3, 2006

Update: GOP To Take DeLay case to Supreme Court

“The Republican Party of Texas intends to expeditiously appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said party Chair Tina Baker in a release, “the 5th Circuit’s decision to force Tom DeLay, an ineligible candidate for Congress, to stay on the ballot in Texas Congressional District 22 as the Republican nominee.”

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.

Occidentality has a good point:

Having spent many years deriding DeLay’s background and accusing him of all manner of corruption, the Democrats appear to have convinced themselves that DeLay is a weak candidate. They might consider that a person powerful enough to generate so much hatred and contempt from their side of the aisle in fact have real talent as a politician. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that their adversaries will not necessarily subjugate themselves to the image Democrats have of them.

» Filed Under Activist Judges, News

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “A Case of Double Standards”

kerwin_brown on August 4th, 2006 1:30 am

I do not know enough about the state or federal laws involved in either case but according to Illinois law a petition with the required number of signatures should have been submitted by this time for any candidate to be considered. I figured it would be similar for New Jersey and Texas. Does anyone know?
camanintx on August 4th, 2006 9:47 am

Comparing the New Jersey and Texas cases is like comparing apples and oranges. The New Jersey law laid out procedures for candidate vacancies 51 days prior to the election but did not say what should happen after the cutoff. That omission is what gave NJ courts the room to rule as they did. In Texas, the law specifically says candidates are ineligible if they are not residents “on the day of the election”. Since that determination cannot be made until the day of the election, Republican’s cannot change candidates three months out. This is a perfect example of why people should be more aware of how laws are actually worded instead of what they are intended to say.
kerwin_brown on August 5th, 2006 2:31 am

Carnanitx,

According to your argument no one could be a candidate in Texas until the day of the election because you would not know if they were a citizen until that day. I am pretty sure that just means they need to establish their citizenship in Texas before or Election Day. I do think the general drift of argument is probably correct but that particular was flawed.