As a lawyer, a law teacher, and an American citizen, I am troubled by some
partisans' criticism of the courts' role in this Presidential election.

For example, NPR reported that Bush adviser James Baker said something to
the effect of "The people should decide this election, not the courts."

I am reminded of a statement that Oliver North's lawyer said during North's
Congressional testimony in the Iran Contra affair.  North's lawyer (was it
Brendan Sullivan?), said "I am not a potted plant."

Along those same lines, American judges are not "potted plants."  Their
purpose is not there to be a sort of "legal window dressing" or to provide
entertainment on daytime TV.  Perhaps most Americans' exposure to judges
may be to judges like Judge Wapner and Judge Judy (actually, these
decisionmakers are arbitrators, I think, but most TV viewers probably don't
know that).  While Judge Wapner and Judge Judy resolve  very minor private
disputes about things like tenants' security deposits and clothes damaged
at the cleaners, American courts are empowered to resolve disputes far
broader and more substantial than the ones played out on the Judge Judy
show.

American courts are an equal branch of government, equal to the executive
and the legislative branches.  And there is nothing whatsoever improper
about judges addressing a Presidential election, as long as they do it
within their Constitutional authority.  I think it is crucial that
Americans (including candidates for President) respect the courts'
authority and independence, even when one or another of the candidates
doesn't get precisely the court ruling that he would prefer.

Dan Levin
Minnesota State




Dan Levin
Assistant Professor of Business Law
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Dept. of Accounting and Business Law
Morris Hall 150
Mankato, MN 56001
(507)-389-1827
Email #1:       [log in to unmask]
Email #2:       [log in to unmask]