Last night we took Kaity to hear Judge John E. Jones III present the second lecture of the seven part “Difficult Dialogues” series being hosted at KU. For those of you who don’t remember, Judge Jones presided over the Intelligent Design case in Dover, PA; Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District. I really didn’t know what I expected, but was surprised by what he chose to discuss. His goal in speaking to us was to discuss how US courts work, and to dispel general misinformation, untruths, outright lies, and misconceptions as they pertain to the judicial process, and how judges rule. It was informative; and he brought to light some startling statistics and personal observations regarding the public’s (mis)perception of how the process works. He called on each of us to redouble our efforts to educate ourselves, our children, and others about our governmental system, and particularly the judicial branch.
One example of a startling misconception that, in particular, one poll indicated teens and young adults have about our rights (and system of government) was that magazines and newspapers must undergo a governmental review before publishing their content! Another example he relayed showed, in his eyes, a common misconception about the judicial process and how rulings are made. Before the trial, everyone was, of course, speculating how he might rule on this issue. Conservative pundits were quite confident that since he was a known Republican, had been nominated by G.W. Bush, and is a practicing Christian, that they were sure to prevail as he was a “good ol’ boy” and would never turn on his own supporters. As he explained in his lecture, while many of those observations may (or may not) be true, they have absolutely no bearing how the process is conducted, and how a ruling is made. He explained that an “activist” judge is one who rules contrary to what is required (as set forth by the laws and precedents) by the process. He did not deny that there are such judges, but is of the opinion that they are rare. And he made it clear that he is not one of them, much to the chagrin of those who disagree with his ruling.
I came away from the lecture with a new respect and faith in our governmental and judicial system to ultimately self correct extremism, but understanding that there are serious problems, such as lack of understanding of the system, that seriously threaten and undermine that process. If we don’t correct the problem at that fundamental level, we may lose our rights forever, and our freedoms.
