Oops, did I say that?

Sylvia Stevens, the president of the Multnomah Bar Association (based in Portland), writes a commentary in the MBA’s latest newsletter (PDF in link) that begs for refutation. It castigates those who would use overreaching rhetoric in the issue of judicial independence, but does so by utilizing, well, overreaching rhetoric.

Ms. Stevens’ discussion starts by throwing darts at the “highly-placed (and ostensibly intelligent) people [who] made outrageous statements castigating the courts and judges who defied the wishes of” Terri Schiavo’s parents. She also takes the media to task for its lack of “helpful and accurate explanations of the truth behind those judicial decisions.”

She continues:

The vast majority of Americans clearly disapproved of Congress’ intervention, seeing it for the political maneuvering it was, but there was also clearly more tolerance among the citizenry for those same Congressional leaders’ blaming the judiciary for their inability to “save” Ms. Schiavo. The blind acceptance of such rhetoric can only aid the cause of those who wish to dismantle the independence and legitimacy of our legal system and twist it to their own partisan ends.

I’m curious who she's thinking of when she notes these "outrageous statements," but I doubt she's talking about Michael Schiavo's attorney. (It's not until the very end of the article that she admits her target is "the right.") Her use of the phrase "ostensibly intelligent" basically tells me she thinks they're not. However, she's right about one thing: the media did not do a good job explaining the situation.

• It did not talk about the wildly disparate opinions on whether Mrs. Schiavo was in a Persistent Vegetative State, nor the incredible difficulty in achieving a correct diagnosis of such, nor the questions about whether the proper tests were administered that might have shed some light on her condition.
• It did not talk about the fact that Mrs. Schiavo's husband, appointed (correctly) her guardian after her brain injury, had lived with another woman for several years and fathered two children with the woman. It did not talk about the fact that Mr. Schiavo — whose duty was to make decisions that were inMrs. Schiavo 's best interests — withheld a variety of treatments over the last decade. It did not ask if a man who was simultaneously married toMrs. Schiavo and living with another could make decisions in Mrs. Schiavo's best interests.
• It did not talk about the fact that while Mr. Schiavo's family supported his belief that Mrs. Schiavo "wouldn't want to live in such a state," the Schindler family disputed that notion and was ignored in every legal setting.
• It did not talk about the fact that Congress' actions only asked for a new review of the case — the legislation never told the courts how to rule, but was passed under the assumption that any deliberate act of ending a human life should be based on solid evidence without the question marks and holes that were pervasive in this case.
  

I could write more, but you get the point. Ms. Stevens' other comments about how the "vast" majority of Americans opposed the actions of Congress seem true, but it's tough to gain an accurate opinion when you're relying on press reports that claim starvation is "painless."

Ms. Stevens is right to point out the unnecessary rhetoric of the right, which includes an 8-year-old quote from Tom DeLay ("The judges need to be intimidated") that has been conveniently resurrected for this occasion, and more recently has included James Dobson's unhelpful comment comparing judges to the KKK. Certainly, we must take any threat of violence seriously, though I would argue that the examples most recently cited (Cornyn & DeLay) are evidence of violent advocacy only to the most extreme left-wing loony toon wing of the Democratic party. Indeed, Ms. Stevens' comment that "We need to remind those who suggest that federal judges might deserve to get shot by frustrated litigants that the rule of law is what differentiates us from societies that resolve disputes with guns and fists" is among the more deceptive comments in the piece; no one (with a whit of credibility) is suggesting that judges "deserve to get shot," and to make such an assertion is irresponsible fear-mongering.

After verbally flogging those who want to "wage war on the judiciary" with their rhetoric and their secret meetings, Stevens violates Godwin's Law. This maxim of online discussion, which was created around 1989, originally stated:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

As it has floated around the internet over the past 16 years, it has evolved to a belief among many that “the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.”

Here's where I flag Ms. Stevens for unsportsmanlike conduct:

Some of you will say I am overreacting to a situation that will eventually resolve itself; that the pendulum will sooner or later swing the other way. I am sure that is true. But much the same was said about Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and the cost of waiting for the return of reason was paid in years of world struggle and millions of human lives. I do not mean to compare the politics of the right with Nazis; I wish only to encourage action rather than complacence. And by action, I mean using our words to counter the campaign of misinformation that threatens our judicial system.

Ms. Stevens degrades the discussion by throwing in the Nazis in an effort to paint her opponent with the most offensive brush. Then, with the intended emotional tarring complete, she backs off as if to say: "Oops, did I say that?"

If she didn't mean to compare the politics of the right with Nazis, she shouldn't have done so. Instead, she flails around in the same rhetorical mud she criticizes her opponents for slinging.