Post by Moses on Dec 28, 2005 22:32:37 GMT -5
Why no zero tolerance for intolerance?
Judge Cohen serves on the 15th Circuit Court of Florida.
By Judge Barry M. Cohen
Growing up in Queens, New York, during the 1960s, I often grew weary of my father's admonition that history repeats itself and that nothing, including our Constitution, guaranteed the survival of our nation.
When Dad insisted that I read To Kill a Mockingbird, I took comfort that the civil rights movement would make racial prejudice a distant memory.
When Dad insisted that we watch the movie Inherit the Wind, I assumed that persecution of secularists by persons of faith was not something I ever would ever face.
And when I marveled at the independence of the retired American judge in Judgment at Nuremberg, I could not understand why my father would suggest that the movie would be relevant when I became an adult. The independence of the American judiciary was a fact, and what happened to Nazi Germany's judiciary never could happen here.
Fast-forward to the present. I have been on the bench for 15 years. Maybe my father was right after all. Consider the following:
My dad, a World War II veteran, often expressed his admiration for his commander-in-chief, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the New Deal that helped him raise my brother and me in relative peace and affluence.
The words of FDR inscribed at his memorial in Washington have particular meaning for me now.
"They who seek to establish a system of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it's not order."
I know what my father would say if he were here to witness the current assault on our Constitution. The words would not be printable in this column.
For some time now, I have been feeling guilty about my silence. As a judge constrained by the Canons of Judicial Ethics, I have been reluctant to express my alarm over the rhetoric of intolerance and prejudice that pervades our daily lives. I also must confess that the fear of political consequences also may have contributed to my silence.
This is not the time for public officials, even judges, to remain silent. Admittedly, I am not particularly spiritual. Neither religion nor a belief in God are major influences in my life. My outlook is secular. The only things I am certain about are my love for my family and the Constitution, and to a lesser degree, baseball. I believe judges should be active in protecting the constitutional rights of the most vulnerable in our society. If that means I am an activist judge, I welcome that label. And, if "liberal" is defined as open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established ways, I accept that label as well.
I believe that late-night radio talk-show hosts should be protected by the First Amendment and be allowed to espouse their views about judges, homosexuals, immigrants and other groups they wish to target.
I also believe when they attack immigrants, gays and "liberals," public officials should not hesitate to call them bigots.
I believe when former Cabinet members publicly suggest that aborting black babies will reduce crime, public officials should not remain silent.
I believe that when prominent religious leaders blame hurricanes and the Sept. 11 attacks as being caused by abortionists and homosexuals, community leaders should express outrage.
I believe that public officials should question whether such bigots should be consulted by the president of the United States for advice about filling vacancies on the Supreme Court.
I am not suggesting that judges may not be conservative or religious, or that gays or immigrants be afforded preferential treatment.
What I am suggesting is that it is not un-American to be a liberal, or secular, or to be welcoming of immigrants.
Above all, I believe all public officials from all branches of government must openly condemn the voices of bigotry.
To do otherwise may have serious consequences for our pluralistic society.
I do not speak for any group or entity. I speak for myself. I do so in full recognition that I serve on the lowest level of our judiciary. I only can hope that voices more recognizable and persuasive than mine will speak out sooner rather than later.
Finally, my views should not be interpreted as a criticism of organized religion or people of faith. In fact, it was a religious leader who best articulated the apprehension I feel today and whose words I close with.
"First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then, they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then, they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
— The Rev. Martin Niemoller
— Judge Barry M. Cohen
Palm Beach Post
2005-12-11
Judge Cohen serves on the 15th Circuit Court of Florida.
By Judge Barry M. Cohen
Growing up in Queens, New York, during the 1960s, I often grew weary of my father's admonition that history repeats itself and that nothing, including our Constitution, guaranteed the survival of our nation.
When Dad insisted that I read To Kill a Mockingbird, I took comfort that the civil rights movement would make racial prejudice a distant memory.
When Dad insisted that we watch the movie Inherit the Wind, I assumed that persecution of secularists by persons of faith was not something I ever would ever face.
And when I marveled at the independence of the retired American judge in Judgment at Nuremberg, I could not understand why my father would suggest that the movie would be relevant when I became an adult. The independence of the American judiciary was a fact, and what happened to Nazi Germany's judiciary never could happen here.
Fast-forward to the present. I have been on the bench for 15 years. Maybe my father was right after all. Consider the following:
My dad, a World War II veteran, often expressed his admiration for his commander-in-chief, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the New Deal that helped him raise my brother and me in relative peace and affluence.
The words of FDR inscribed at his memorial in Washington have particular meaning for me now.
"They who seek to establish a system of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it's not order."
I know what my father would say if he were here to witness the current assault on our Constitution. The words would not be printable in this column.
For some time now, I have been feeling guilty about my silence. As a judge constrained by the Canons of Judicial Ethics, I have been reluctant to express my alarm over the rhetoric of intolerance and prejudice that pervades our daily lives. I also must confess that the fear of political consequences also may have contributed to my silence.
This is not the time for public officials, even judges, to remain silent. Admittedly, I am not particularly spiritual. Neither religion nor a belief in God are major influences in my life. My outlook is secular. The only things I am certain about are my love for my family and the Constitution, and to a lesser degree, baseball. I believe judges should be active in protecting the constitutional rights of the most vulnerable in our society. If that means I am an activist judge, I welcome that label. And, if "liberal" is defined as open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established ways, I accept that label as well.
I believe that late-night radio talk-show hosts should be protected by the First Amendment and be allowed to espouse their views about judges, homosexuals, immigrants and other groups they wish to target.
I also believe when they attack immigrants, gays and "liberals," public officials should not hesitate to call them bigots.
I believe when former Cabinet members publicly suggest that aborting black babies will reduce crime, public officials should not remain silent.
I believe that when prominent religious leaders blame hurricanes and the Sept. 11 attacks as being caused by abortionists and homosexuals, community leaders should express outrage.
I believe that public officials should question whether such bigots should be consulted by the president of the United States for advice about filling vacancies on the Supreme Court.
I am not suggesting that judges may not be conservative or religious, or that gays or immigrants be afforded preferential treatment.
What I am suggesting is that it is not un-American to be a liberal, or secular, or to be welcoming of immigrants.
Above all, I believe all public officials from all branches of government must openly condemn the voices of bigotry.
To do otherwise may have serious consequences for our pluralistic society.
I do not speak for any group or entity. I speak for myself. I do so in full recognition that I serve on the lowest level of our judiciary. I only can hope that voices more recognizable and persuasive than mine will speak out sooner rather than later.
Finally, my views should not be interpreted as a criticism of organized religion or people of faith. In fact, it was a religious leader who best articulated the apprehension I feel today and whose words I close with.
"First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then, they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then, they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
— The Rev. Martin Niemoller
— Judge Barry M. Cohen
Palm Beach Post
2005-12-11
