Judging the news

Last night I was watching the evening news (I know, I know, I must be a masochist) when I heard a story about President Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Meirs. The reporters were babbling about whether or not Ms. Meirs would overturn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that federalized abortion. It occurred to me what an absolutely ignorant thing to ask of a nominee. It shows one of two things. Either the reporter is completely ignorant of how the courts of this country work, or they assumed the viewer (me) was so ignorant that I would be unable to realize just how stupid the question is. Either way, its not very flattering for the reporter or the network.

The US Constitution is very brief on the Supreme Court.

Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.


Basically all it says is there will be a Supreme Court.

Now, while I've never actually attended a trial - I've been called for jury duty twice, but not seated either time - I do know a little something about the law. I also know an awful lot about processes and procedures, and how audits and such work. And after watching many fictional trials on TV, I know an awful lot about what is not the law, and what does not go on in trials. I remember one show I watched where the prosecution gave its final arguments, then the defense did, then the prosecution had a rebuttal. I know enough to know that it doesn't work that way.

At its simplest, a trial is nothing more than one party spelling out their complaint against another party either before or jury or a judge. The judge's job is to keep things fair, impartial, and moving along.

What Roe v Wade spelled out is, throughout the US Constitution, there are a series of guaranteed rights, that when taken together form a new right, that is not specifically spelled out, to privacy. On its face, that seems logical. Until you read the tenth amendment which says:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That one is one of my favorite parts of the US Constitution. It spells out very clearly, that unless the US Constitution specifically spells out a power for the federal government, they ain't got it, the states and the people do. Which is why Roe v Wade is terrible law. But I'm not going over Roe v Wade today, instead I'm zeroing in on the ridiculous question the reporter uttered, would Meirs vote to overturn it.

When a lower court has made a ruling, and one of the parties involved in a case thinks it's wrong or the trial was unfair, they usually have the right to appeal the finding to a higher court. These appeals sometimes wind their way all the way up to the Supreme Court, from which there is no appeal. The key thing to remember is it's an appeal on how a lower court ruled, or on the fairness of the trial conducted by a lower court. The Supreme Court does not look at laws and decide whether they like them or not. They do not have the authority to just toss out laws because they don't like them, or uphold them because they do. At least not in theory. As Roe v Wade shows, sometimes they do.

Should Ms. Meirs be seated on the Supreme Court, how she rules on Roe v Wade will have much more to do with the facts of the case presented before the court, than her own personal feelings, in theory. Should someone come up with an appeal against Roe v Wade, that makes a better case against it than the current ruling ( Roe v Wade), then the judges should find that way. If not, it should stand. But the facts of the case are what's important.

So why is the reporter from the evening news such an idiot? Because there's no way an honest judge can say how they would rule in a case that doesn't exist, and has not been argued before the court. That's like asking me to tell you what I think of Paris before I've ever traveled to Europe. Its an unfair question that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Tell me, will you like the dog you have ten years from now? Will you be happy with the birthday gift your spouse gives you five years from now, assuming you don't even have a spouse at the moment? Who the hell knows?

But what really gets me about the reporter's questions is this: if this reporter doesn't know anything about how any court, much less the Supreme Court, operates, they have no business reporting on it. And if they do, shame on them for not explaining to the general public on how it actually operates. They've broken the cardinal rule of reporting, they are misrepresenting opinion and philosophy as facts. If there's any consolation to this sorbed affair its that the mainstream media is going the way of the dinosaur. Good riddance!