ACTIVIST JUDGES

The Charge

The Christian Science Monitor offers a fine introduction to the instant case in its April 13 article, Bringing the Case Against Judges.


The Prosecutors

Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration

Court Watch, affiliated with the Eagle Forum

Judicial Amendment Coalition

National Resources Defense Council

Law Enforcement Alliance of America


Amici curiae for the defendant

Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, a partnership of People for the American Way, the Leadership Council for Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), and the Communications Consortium Media Center.

Statement from the president of the American Bar Association

An Independent Judiciary: Report of the Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence (1997), American Bar Association


The Defense

I've known a few judges. Some were liberal; some were conservative. Regardless of their political persuasion, all enjoyed holding court, both literally and figuratively. Consequently, I predict the judicial community will not suffer in relative silence for too much longer before reaching out and taking some mighty slaps at those who have been abusing them so sorely. Here's one:

Letter to the NY Times editor from the president of the National Association of Women Judges (source: American Judges Association)


Sidebars

On the definitions of activism and an analysis of the Rehnquist Court: A Hand in the Matter, by Cass Sunstein in Legal Affairs

A calm consideration of judicial activism, including decisions that may look activist but are not, and decisions that don't appear to be activist, but are: On Judicial Activism: Judges and the Constitution Today, by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, in Open Spaces Quarterly

Point and counterpoint re: conservative judicial activism, from the Federalist Society


Sentencing proposals

Constitution Restoration Act (proposed)

Judicial Accountability Amendment (being petitioned)

LIBERAL MEDIA

Media biased?

It's rare to hear the word "media" without the word "liberal" in front of it.

In trying to find facts about media bias, I have thus far been unable to locate a media watch group without its own bias. Those that are liberal reject the idea of a liberal bias in the media. Those that are conservative assume a liberal bias. Both offer evidence to support their positions. Here are two examples:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal)

Accuracy in Media (conservative)

Does it matter?

In the abstract, we seek The Truth. In the abstract, we want our media to reveal The Truth. Alas, we do not enjoy consensus on what constitutes The Truth. And even if we did, a favorite quote of mine comes in handy: The truth is a shady spot where we eat our lunch before moving on. (E.G. Williamson) That is, agreement on The Truth - like Love - is not always enough.

Setting aside the abstract of The Truth, then:

Decrying the media as liberal or conservative benefits some of us all of the time and most of us some of the time.

The media serve as a convenient scapegoat for groups interested in establishing a Them Against Us construct.

We ordinary folks find it convenient to assign bias to a news source when we disagree with or cannot process the information the news source provides on an issue that triggers us emotionally.

Thus it may not matter so much if the media have a political bias. What may matter more is our political bias as news consumers.

But anyway ...

Here is a thoughtful essay on the subject of media bias by Dr. Andrew Cline in his Rhetorica Network. An excerpt from the essay:

Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is ...

Hopefully, my contrived cliffhanger will entice you over to the full essay.

FILIBUSTER

Senatorial filibusters against judicial nominations are against people of faith?

Please.

A filibuster is merely a procedural tool that a person or group uses in an attempt to block an undesirable decision.

Some would have us believe that filibusters are only the latest in a conspiracy against "people of faith." Others want us to believe that the filibuster is a fundamental right handed down to us from the Founding Fathers. Neither is true.

What's the real story about filibusters?

A Fictional View of the Filibuster, from factcheck.org.

The Ongoing Controversy Over Judicial Nominees What Will It Mean if the GOP "Goes Nuclear" On The Filibuster Rules?, an article by John Dean at findlaw.com.

Filibuster and Cloture, from the U.S. Senate's Powers and Procedures site.

From wikipedia

Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster, by Brian Naylor and Ron Elving, National Public Radio

PERSUASION

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

From the beginning, there were those like the serpent who worked their wiles on the wills of others in order to achieve their own ends.

It is no different today.

One approach is persuasion.

What is persuasion?

From Dr. Kelton Rhoads at workingpsychology.com's definition page, here is an excerpt :

Persuasion attempts to win "the heart and mind" of the target. Thus persuasion must induce attitude change, which entails affective (emotion-based) change.

What are typical persuasion techniques?

From Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence:

1. Intent. Forewarned is forearmed. Therefore, simply present the persuasive message without warning.

2. Organization. Structure produces comprehension. Chaos produces confusion. Therefore, make the message clear and organized.

3. Examples versus statistics. Examples are easier to comprehend and generate greater thoughtfulness than statistics. Therefore, prove your points with examples your receivers find compelling.

4. Sidedness. There are two sides to every issue. Messages which defend one side and attack the other are more effective. Therefore, support your position, but make sure you point out weaknesses in other views.

5. Repetition and redundancy. The frequency with which a message is given enhances influence to a balance point. Past that point repetition will annoy and frustrate receivers. Redundancy will delay reaching the balance point, but will not prevent it. Repetition works to improve comprehension. Therefore, expect to repeat your messages several times to make sure everyone gets the word and understands the word.

6. Rhetorical questions. Statements hidden as questions work well when given in advance of the main message. Rhetoricals serve to enhance attention and message processing. Therefore, use rhetoricals to get or regain attention before you make you major points.

7. Fear appeals. Fear also leads to more thinking about the persuasive message. More fear leads to more thinking (except perhaps in extreme, real-world situations). If you feel comfortable with it, use fear appeals to get the attention of your receivers.

8. Evidence. Something created by another person that you use is evidence. Evidence may be the most powerful message variable there is. It produces a simple equation: More good evidence, more influence. Therefore, always include the best evidence for your receivers.

Steve Booth-Butterfield teaches communications at West Virginia University.

ABOUT GROUNDWATER

Groundwater is an effort to:

• Explore the concepts of persuasion and influence; and
  
• Disclose what's behind the sales pitches we receive every day from people who want to win our hearts and minds (and dollars).
  

I hope to offer information that will help readers like me make more informed decisions about today's political and ideological hot buttons.