Visiting judge counters criticism of last year's Supreme Court decision

"What do I dislike most about being a federal judge? Well I'll tell you, there is one thing - the power I have and the potential to abuse that power," U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of Louisiana said yesterday afternoon, addressing the controversy surrounding last year's Bush v. Gore case.

Feldman condemned accusations made against the five conservative Supreme Court Justices of abandoning principles and handing the election to their favorite candidate.

The Court ruled in a split vote of 5-4 in favor of Bush, after he appealed presidential candidate Al Gore's request for a manual recount of Florida votes.

The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant an extension for a recount, and the recount was immediately stopped.

"Liberal judges don't always vote like liberals, and conservative judges don't always vote like conservatives, often to the dismay of presidents who appoint them," Feldman pointed out.

Personal attacks

He criticized launching personal attacks on the conservative justices and argued that the ruling simply showed "judges at work interpreting the law."

Feldman felt the accusations were unjustified.

"It insults the court and damages the aggregate and permanent interests of the community," he said. "Bush v. Gore was in line with regard of the rule of law and not a betrayal of faith."

Discussing the definition of the "rule of law," Feldman quoted such philosophers as Jeremy Bentham, Alex DeToqueville, Oliver Wendall Holmes and Thomas Paine.

He maintained that the judges were guided by this historic rule of law rather than their own philosophical and political beliefs.

By exploring the history of the Supreme Court and specific cases, Feldman argued that judges in the past and these same justices had made unexpected decisions.

"This same so called polarized, political court is hardly evident of partisan politics," he said. "[The Reinquist Court] is hard to predict, malleable to judging, shifting from usual lines, coalitions and alliances."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Feldman agreed that whether the court made the right or wrong decision was the source of healthy debate but that the ruling of the justices was not politically motivated.

Madison

The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions sponsored Feldman's lecture, titled "The Election of 2000: Has the Rule of Law Been Degraded?"

"[The purpose of the program] is to build a traditional strength in the Department of Politics of constitutional law and political thought," said University politics Professor Robert George — the founding director of the James Madison Program.

Feldman's speech was part of this year's Alpheus Mason Lectures on Constitutional Law and Political Thought.

It is a program intended to bring eminent scholars, jurists, public officials and intellectuals to the University to speak on relevant political topics.

"I thought it was a powerful critique of a view widely held by the academy of Bush v. Gore as merely a political decision," George said.

"I wished there was more time to debate the merits of the case," he said. "It raises very difficult issues on constitutional law and warrants a debate of its merits."