State Senator John Wiles called me back yesterday, and we were able to speak for a few minutes about the controversy that erupted this week during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB 292. I’ve said about all I can on that particular topic without risking misquoting someone, so I’m not going to be discussing the events of that day here. Senator Wiles offered to write something up about his thoughts on those events, and I offered to publish anything he writes via the Publius account, so we’ll see if that actually happens.
But during the conversation, Senator Wiles stated that he is one of the most ardent defenders of both the US and GA Constitutions. He said that he considers the oath he takes to defend both Constitutions every two years to be absolutely sacred, and that he does all he can to defend them both.
We got to talking about things along these lines, and he brought up a really interesting point for me to ponder, which y’all get to read about now:
Who else can defend us against the government but lawyers?
The People’s first line of defense from government is, has been, and always will be the courts. Courts need legal experts – lawyers – on both sides of any given issue to argue the merits of each side so that the truth and justice can prevail.
Apparently, the provision of SB 292 that was being argued Thursday was one that would put lawyers’ professional conduct under the purview of the General Assembly and thus, ultimately, the Governor. Thus, the very government that could seek to enslave us would directly control the People’s first line of defense. Very few lawyers would be willing to take on the Executive or the Legislative if either of those two branches could bar them from ever working again. As it currently exists, the Judicial branch controls lawyers, and thus lawyers play a key role in the checks and balances system our entire way of government is based upon.
I gotta say, this is yet another evidence of the greatness of our Founding Fathers that they would establish the system this way. Of course, a piece of history that even this history buff didn’t know could have played a role there. Apparently, John Adams – the second President of the United States of America – had defended a particularly unpopular group of people at one point: the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Yes, the second President of the United States of America had defended the “terrorists” and “federal agents” of his day.
Think of all the times where our rights have had to be decided in a courtroom because the Executive and Legislative branches refused to do their jobs properly. Jim Crowe died in the courtroom, not on the floor of any legislative body. Marriage equality has been upheld in the courtroom, even while the ballot box continues to deny it. Religious freedom is often denied in the City Council chambers or even the State Legislative chambers while the Courts do their job and defend those freedoms.
Lawyers have one of the most despised jobs in our society for the very reason that they take unpopular stands on a daily basis. They fight to defend EVERYONE’s freedom, even though the majority would like to see certain peoples’ freedoms eliminated.
Putting lawyers under the control of the Executive or Legislative would remove the first – and I would argue, best – line of defense of our rights. As John Oxendine said at the Tifton Forum “You can stand up and you can preach a beautiful sermon about States’ Rights, but that’s not going to get anything done. … You don’t tell the Supreme Court to go jump in the lake, you beat them at their own game.” To beat judges at their own game, you need lawyers who have the freedom to take on the government in the court system without fear of Legislative or Executive reprisal.
But then, the crowd arguing for Legislative and Executive control of lawyers is also the very same crowd calling for outright war against the government of the United States of America.
We can change things at the ballot box via amending the Constitution, but that just puts basic rights under mob rule, and voters as a whole have been known to get things wrong just as much as any other faction in our American System.
No, we need Defenders of the Constitution in EVERY arena in the American System of Government, and an independent judiciary – with its associated lawyers – is an absolutely critical component of that system.
In the interest of at least partial disclosure and at the risk of inviting rocks being thrown at me, I humbly confess to be a lawyer.
Sen. Wiles and you Jeff, bring up a good point. We tend to focus on the person voicing the argument against our interests as being the bad guy. We forget that a lawyer is also advocating our side of things too. For every ACLU lawyer arguing a case, there is a non-ACLU lawyer arguing the other side of the same case. For every personal injury lawyer trying to convince a jury, there is an insurance defense lawyer addressing the same jury. For every domestic lawyer who you thought was out to ruin someone’s financial life, there is another lawyer trying to salvage it. For our legal system to be as fair as possible, lawyers must argue positions they do not personally share. Criminal defense lawyers frequently fall in this category.
Judges sometimes go through the same unfair criticism, except they are not allowed to publicly defend themselves. As lawyers and litigants, we tend to have a higher opinion of the intellect and moral compass of a judge who has ruled our way. But judges who rule against us are demonized as “stupid”; “crooked” or “paid off”. I guess its just human nature.
And do not assume that judges always agree with the laws that they are obligated by oath, to enforce. It’s like an umpire who doesn’t agree with the infield fly rule, but still has to call it when he sees it. But that’s a whole other post.