Our laws don’t allow our judges to play favorites
Aman stood in court awaiting sentencing. The judge asked him, “Sir, are you seeking justice?” The man replied, “Heck no, Judge! Could I have mercy instead?”
As a judge for many years, I have experienced a variation of such a colloquy. I often ask people, “Aren’t you interested in what the law says about your case?” To which many people have essentially responded, “Only if it’s in my favor.”
Most parties who come to court could care less about what the law requires or, in fact, compels judges to do in their cases. People only care about the ultimate result and what it means for them.
I cannot blame people for feeling that way. It is human nature. But this result-oriented approach causes court participants often to unfairly criticize judges and the courts on which they
serve. And such criticism ultimately can be extremely destructive to the judicial branch of government.
How many times over the years have I heard someone say, “Boy, that judge is mean. He is terrible!” Upon further discussion, it became clear, to me at least, that the judge simply had done his job. The complaining party received an adverse result, which the law required, and he or she became angry and then personally attacked the judge.
When I practiced law, I once heard a lawyer raise his voice in frustration to a judge. “Judge, what is it going to take to get you to ever grant one of my motions?” he demanded. To which she calmly replied, “Law which supports your position, counselor.”
New Mexico judges take an oath to uphold the United States and New Mexico constitutions and the laws of our state. We also enforce all procedural rules issued to us by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
When someone comes into court seeking preferential treatment, he or she is not going to receive it, nor should they. No one is above the law. No one should ask a judge to ignore a law or court rule. Everyone is equally protected under our laws and also must shoulder the same obligations. This concept is known as the rule of law.
A den mother recently asked me to speak to a group of Webelos — young Cub Scouts — about the rule of law. I asked these scouts what our country would be like if we did not have rules everyone was required to follow. One young boy looked me right in the eye and replied “chaos.” Sharp kid.
If a pro se individual, attorney or organization feels that the law or a court rule is unfair, the obvious solution is to try and get the law or rule changed. Ad hominem attacks leveled at judges and courts for doing their job accomplish nothing. These types of attacks amount to nothing more than “killing the messenger.” These attacks are intended to undermine the rule of law through public intimidation of the judges who are carrying out their sworn duties.
Over the years, I have observed people attacking judges’ decisions as being pro-this or anti-that. But what is always starkly absent is whether the decisions are legally sound and uphold the rule of law. Is that not what we should be concerned about, judges upholding the law?
America is a country that values personal freedoms and equal protection for all. Thus, we must resist attacks on the rule of law, the very mechanism that protects those freedoms. Parties who are result-oriented must accept the law as written or try to change the law through appropriate channels. Attacking the judges who enforce the rules and law is not the solution.
Without the rule of law, our country would be, as my little Webelos would say, “chaos.” From the mouths of babes.