judicial "huh?"

Ok so last night I am reading this article in Mother Jones and I start to think that maybe the critics of "judicial activism" have a point. The article is about a group of lawyers attempting to sue gun manufacturers for not doing enough to stop the sale of guns that are eventually used for criminal purposes. The lawsuit if being filed in New York and the claim is that since New York has such tight gun sale laws, the only way these guns are getting into the city is from people smugling them in after buying large quantities in the south Eastern US. Some of their data...

"According to one widely cited study published by the Clinton administration in 2000, just 1.2 percent of dealers accounted for more than 57 percent of the guns used in crimes nationwide. If gun companies stopped their products from getting into the hands of such dealers, far fewer guns would flow into the local black markets—leading, it's hoped, to a commensurate drop in violent crime."

So basically they are asking the gun companies to regulate themselves and take social responsibility. This hardly seems like a tall order--except that it involves a combination of the second amendment and an interference in a major national industry so inevitably there are going to be some people who don't approve. Still, it seems like they have a fairly legitimate case for some sort of policy change and it seems like it is sort of sketchy to go about it through lawsuits instead of trying to get some public approval for the measure. This seems to be a flaw in some of the thinking around things like gay marriage and abortion. Though I see their point and I agree with the ideas, if you go through the courts it seems a very shallow victory in that it isn't done with public support. This makes getting it overturned more likely and makes the winning side at any one time too smug to be forced into a full argument or compromise with their critics. On the other hand, there is a reason the judiciary is supposed to be independent of public pressure and, as many point out, it is likely that segregation would still be with us were it not for the way it was dealt with by the court.

In any event, I was really thinking about this for a few minutes, which is longer than I have for a while, and it seemed like there was certainly something practical, if not ethical, that trying to accomplish things legislatively recommended. Then I woke up this morning and, besides more harrowing tales of New Orleans and the utter incompetence of the federal government in restoring order (disgraceful and distrubing to say the least) I also heard on the local NPR station and read in the WaPo Express a little story about one of the groups who is working on this issue--though almost always from a rigth wing perspective--Judicial Watch. The story leads with this

A conservative legal group sued the town of Herndon yesterday in an attempt to block an official site where day laborers can wait to be hired, saying the plan would attract immigrants who are in the country illegally.

So, just to recap, the issue that groups like Judicial Watch claim to be dealing with is activist legal arguments that avoid being put to a public forum--though their site says something about abuse of political power in general which makes it kind of confusing that they call themselves "judicial" watch and, perhaps, a bit clearer what their true goal is: not objective problems with the government or the legal system but a bludgeon for when things don't go their way. And this is just what they are doing.

The situation in Herndon is far from settled. If I understand it, the town council hadn't yet made a decision and, as of August 17 had put the decision on hold. So basically, this group--which isn't based in Herndon and has no stake in the Herdon situation--is coming in from the outside to "legislate from the bench" by keeping the legislation from passing via a lawsuit. They are, in other words, forgoing public discussion in order to force through a judicial solution. I thought that was what "Judicial Watch" was supposed to be against. If they would simply claim that they are a bunch of right wingers who have issues with immigration and anything remotely liberal and they will do anything, by any means to prevent it, then I guess they would be at least justified. But doing this just makes them look like hypocrites.

The previous article in the WaPo said that the town council meeting meant to decide this two weeks ago brought in over 150 people to speak on the issue--from both sides. This was, it seems to me, a rare moment of civic engagement and an opportunity to really try to deal with a complex problem through discussion and debate. This has been sorely lacking in our country lately, even if the divisive, rhetoric polarized rhetoric that probably ensued is pretty much par for the course. But it was still in process and it is really low for these meddling right wingers to decide they would better serve the population than anyone actually living there. Certainly they found six opponents of the bill to be the names on the lawsuit, but that is a contrived way of going about this--even for the six opponents. Furthermore, it makes me think that the lawyers in NY might as well go ahead with their lawsuit because if they don't, someone else will.

Some days I just wonder if this country is, for lack of a better word, fucked. If I didn't live here and didn't care, I'd just throw up my arms, make a cynical joke and laugh it off. Unfortunately, I don't have that luxery. But what to do? There are such powerful forces polarizing every issue from outside and using blunt categorical imperatives that it doesn't seem to matter whether we have a vibrant civil society because the well is already poisoned. Discussion in a community cannot happen because we have to think about what Charlton Heston and Martin Sheen would like us to do or what Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh might recommend or what the founding fathers or Karl Marx really meant when they said "..." It is no wonder people avoid politics. It is the most thankless subject one can ponder, the results are almost always disappointing to someone, and getting to that disappointment can sometimes take the better part of one's life. Sounds like a lot of fun and it makes it easy to see why fascism is so attractive--which, perhaps, answers the question I asked at the end of my post yesterday...