Justice Should Be Blind

We have a problem. There is an imbalance that must be corrected. An order that must be restored. We are a nation of laws, and the laws must be evenly applied.

As an Attorney I understand the law. I get the legal concepts of precedent, burden of proof, burden shifting. I respect the rules of evidence and rules of procedure. I appreciate decorum and formality. When the judge takes the bench I come to my feet, and address them as “Judge” or “Your Honor”, even when I may otherwise be on a first name basis.

I appreciate that the law has nuances which sometimes require judicial discretion and even judicial interpretation. In a case of first impression a judge must study, and reflect, and opine, but always within the confines of the law. And to do that correctly, to avoid being “plainly and palpably wrong”, or to avoid “abuse of discretion”, a judge must oversee every case figuratively blindfolded.

In the sixty-year span from 1963 to 2023 there were only 127 nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. A disturbing fact emerges when you realize more than half of them were issued against Trump administration actions during his first term. Another seventeen nationwide injunctions against Trump policies have issued in the first 100 days of his second term. In all, President Trump has seen more nationwide judicial halts to his work in a little over four years of presidential service than Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden combined in their respective cumulative twenty years in the Oval Office. One pundit claims that upwards of 92% of those came from Democrat appointed judges.

Were all of those judges on the side of justice?

Having said all of that let me go full-on cowboy on you. There are a few movies that are my bona fide Achilles heel. When flipping channels on the TV there is an overarching compulsion to stop and watch a few minutes of certain movies. One of those kryptonite classics is “Tombstone”! Any man who says that they don’t like Tombstone, well… I’m questioning their manhood.

There are several great scenes in Tombstone, but let me key in on one in particular. A member of the Cowboys gang named Curly Bill murdered the beloved town Marshall.  Wyatt Earp pistol-whipped Curly Bill, but the townsfolk began to gather and call for a lynching. Earp’s response was “nobody’s hangin’ anybody! He’ll stand trial for what he’s done!”

Was Wyatt Earp taking the side of the criminal?

Curly Bill’s gang showed up and demanded that Wyatt let him go. One of the Cowboys found himself staring down the business end of a Colt Peacemaker, with Earp saying, “Your boys might get me in a rush but not before I make your head into a canoe”.

Was Wyatt Earp taking the side of the people?

Wyatt Earp stopped the bad guy, he saved the bad guy, he denied the townsfolk their vengeance, and he denied Ike Clanton his attempt to subvert the legal system. Wyatt Earp’s position was to take the side of actual Justice. Not one side or the other. Just the even enforcement and application of the law. He was the man in the middle. The arbiter of emotions, evidence, and legal standing. In that one scene he was the cowboy version of blindfolded justice.

Justice is matter-of-fact. Justice is even tempered. Justice is based in both law and fact. Justice is required, it is a duty of those who wear the black robes to apply, enforce and determine what is legally and naturally right. Justice is the even-keeled protection of rights and the stability that comes from law and order, regardless of whether they are enacted on the part of the accused or the accuser, the perpetrator or the victim.

Justice upholds the black letter law, protects the weak, defends the right way of doing things, establishes order in our communities, maintains civility, and upholds proper authority. Justice cares for the aggrieved, while ensuring that both passion and compassion remain tempered and manageable.

What if Wyatt Earp had just joined in with the crowd and said, “yeah! Get a rope!”. His character was angry, his character liked the old Marshall. How would you have felt about his character then?

What if Earp had just holstered his pistol and stepped aside when the Cowboys demanded he release Curly Bill? They were the bullies everyone feared. Earp could have just let it be. How would you have felt about his character then?

Right now, in venues all over this nation we are seeing an epidemic of injustice. The uneven application of the law is not to be confused with simply losing on an issue. The public trust in the judiciary is being eroded unnecessarily by judges who clearly reflect a bias toward Trump policies.

 Any judge is a person first, with personal thoughts and desires, but they are not allowed to bring personal agendas into the courtroom. Any judge who cannot set aside their personal predilections, predispositions, or predetermined notions, has a duty to recuse from the case.

The application of law is a sacred thing. We are a nation of laws which sets us apart from much of world history. We are not to allow whims, prejudices, agendas, or biases to enter into the prosecution of our citizens, nor the rulings made on policy.

But in our polarized society we appear to be watching judicial objectivity thrown out the window by judicial activists content to strip the blindfold off of lady justice.

In a nation of laws there is no room for courtroom activists. Lawyers come and go, but the bench bears a higher burden of responsibility. We need more constitutionally grounded, fair-minded, objective and dispassionate men and women in those positions of such esteem and import.