The Law of the Jungle Doesn’t Use Judges

Negative rhetoric regarding American judges by our President has been early, often, and harsh. It isn’t unlike the behavior of many NBA players during the playoffs who continually whine about fouls—most of which are the right calls.

Judges come in many flavors. Having practiced law for over 45 years, yours truly has experienced quite a few. My experience has been that they are generally decent folks who are trying to do what’s right. If they get it wrong from time to time—who doesn’t? Our least talented judges would more than likely be considered gifted and talented when compared to our current legislators.

Judges are civilized society’s version of referees in sports. A high school or college wrestling match could easily degenerate without a referee. There are more fights than there should be in hockey, but imagine what would happen without referees and linemen. Do we really think the honor system would work in professional or college baseball or basketball?

Without judges, America could devolve into the law of the jungle. Our founders wisely created a system of checks and balances to prevent that. Judges are key players in that time-honored system. Judges, however, don’t always have the last say on what laws are or are not constitutional. If we the people have a problem with the Constitution, we can amend it. Amending the Constitution, however, is a difficult process—as it should be.

Independent judges are to the Constitution what goalies are to hockey. They are very valuable players. Judges settle disputes based upon evidence and law refined by debate between the opposing parties. Primitive societies use violence to resolve internal disputes. A war of words and ideas instead of guns and knives is a benchmark of civilization.

Our judicial system is not perfect, and neither are judges and lawyers. That said—name a better system.