Lefkow to Senate: Respect judges

Yesterday morning, my neighbor, Judge Joan Lefkow, testified before the U.S. Senate on judicial security. According to the Chicago Tribune, it was her first public appearance since her mother and husband were slain by a deranged former litigant on February 28. In her testimony, she made the case that in specific areas, the government can take concrete steps to help protect judges. She also spoke out against the increasingly open hostility by some against the judicial branch:

Lefkow mentioned Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, who appeared on a national talk show recently and criticized judges with agendas by saying the "gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

In her testimony, Lefkow countered by saying that be they liberal or conservative, she had never come across a judge in the federal judiciary who deserved to be described in such a way.

"In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," she said. "It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them."

There are elements of our society, particularly from the extreme political right, who don't seem to understand the role of the judicial branch of our government. While our democracy is meant to be responsive to the populace, it is also based on a fairly static constitution, and this prevents lawmakers, acting on the capricious whims of the people, from enacting legislation that is in conflict with established law. It is the courts' role to enforce this -- a role that is not entirely straightforward, as it gets increasingly difficult to ensure a system's internal consistency as the system becomes increasingly complex.

When a judge overturns a law as being unconstitutional, you may disagree with his or her opinion, but as long as it is done with the intention of restoring consistency to the body of law, it is not, as they say, "legislating from the bench."