Time for another Supreme Court story

It is a strange day for the American lawyer. The Congress has refused to do its job, simply saying "no" to its Constitutional obligation to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nobody seems to care. The Supreme Court goes about its business with an empty chair, but clearly pushes off cases they may otherwise have heard due to a desire to avoid a deadlock. Yet, nobody comments. The American public clamors to the side of a newly minted Republican with no governing experience and to a newly minted Democrat who was "that crazy socialist" to everyone except his home state for his entire career - up to now. People barely blink. The disenfranchised minorities no longer respect nor fear our society, and thus take aim at police and government officials without thought of the consequences. Police become afraid, and move too quickly to their guns. And people gasp, while changing the channel to "The Voice." The blurred lines between domestic law violator and terrorist are more and more in the eyes of the beholder, or more accurately dependent on how much a prosecutor or law enforcement official wants to use his special, secret "terrorist" fighting powers. There is no outrage. Our movie theaters provide us with more and more escapist interstellar monster dramas, to help us feel better about life on earth. A television show about our leaders being who they are because ants from space have eaten half their brains airs on a major network, and nobody wonders if it's satire. So, is there any doubt, really, that this backdrop means it's time for another U.S. Supreme Court Story? Joseph Story served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845. Ask any American what he is most remembered for, and they will immediately respond "who?" That's not his fault, however; most Americans would respond the same if asked to name the current Supreme Court, or to cite any meaningful decision of any judge of any name. The Supreme Court affects our lives more than our president, our congresspersons, or the cop on the corner, but they work in silence and with little fanfare or name recognition. Those who remember or study, however, would love to tell you about good old Joe. If given the chance, they would tell you that Joe was a Constitutional scholar of true dedication. He was most assuredly conservative, but he was neither strictly literalist nor a living-document kind of guy. He authored an intelligent, analytical work called the "Commentaries on the Constitution," which discussed the struggles of the early founding fathers to shape our laws, which is still worth reading today. In fact, it should probably be required reading in Washington and in every state capital. Yet, Story was not merely a boring 1800's talking head or analyst. He had a dash of flare and Story's story does have some story to it. He was the author of the Supreme Court's decision in The Amistad case, most recently made memorable by Mr. Spielberg and company. Story was a Republican in the true sense of the word, preferring a republican state of government to a strictly democratic one. Today's rash of populace referenda, challenge to the electoral college, horror at super delegates, and demand for vote by vote accountability would not find him a clear ally. He was, however, a stout supporter of individual rights - the most important being the right to be left alone by government, and a staunch defender of property and the wealthy few's entitlement to keep a hold on theirs. Story's rulings helped retrench property rights as a fixture of American law at a time when the protections of such rights had begun to erode. Yes, filling that empty 9th seat with a person of Judge Joseph Story's pedigree would not be such a bad thing, and would probably be a selection acceptable as a compromise to all sides of the aisle. Of course appointing such a person would require Congress to actually consider such person for the job, and ultimately wouldn't be noticed by most people in any event - since a Story-like appointee would come without prepackaged taglines or appear to be a likely candidate for commitment or incarceration. Yes, these are strange days for an American lawyer. Strange days indeed. ----- ©2016 Under Analysis Distribution, LLC. Under analysis is a syndicated column penned by members of the Levison Group. Charles Kramer, one such member, is a principal of the St Louis based lawfirm Riezman Berger, PC. Comments or criticism about this column can be sent to this newspaper or direct to the Levison Group at comments@levisongroup.com Published: Fri, Aug 12, 2016