By JOHN BARTLIT
Los Alamos

Humans practice the craft of framing good things to look bad and vice versa. Be alert, good citizens, and be wary. The greatest of virtues can be, and often is, argued to be a weakness.

This troubling craft plays a large role in the political arena. And especially so at this pivotal time in our nation’s history. The time is ripe to revisit the subject called “civics”. Today, I write about the mix of democratic duties that pertain to the rule of law.

The phrase “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” has a strong ring to it. People are indispensable, yet none is perfect. In 1970, we heard, “Ah, Houston, we’ve had a problem”. That full story took 25 years to come out in the 1995 film, “Apollo 13” with Tom Hanks. 

Central to the outcome for today’s democracy is an independent judiciary. “Independent judiciary” speaks of the three separate and coequal branches of our government—executive, legislative, and judicial. The Founders wove checks and balances into these branches to curb the human urge for power.

Yea, the checks and balances among the branches found in the U.S. Constitution have proved their worth many times over. Yet, the judiciary alone stands out from the other branches for further unique values that have evolved since Roman times. In the U.S., a good many of these traits are enshrined in named documents, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Local Rules of Court.

We have municipal courts, state courts, and federal courts. Nothing of comparable quality and force exists in the other branches. Far more than the other two branches, the judiciary is designed to expect and guard against the fallibility of all humans, using real-time measures and layers of review that improve results. Spurred by the judiciary, Congress built an elaborate system of courts of appeals in 1891. 

Plain folks know more about these rules and their grand effectiveness than the news media notice. We have seen them in versions of real life—in famous movies, in courtroom drama series on TV, perhaps when called for jury duty, and in the weight that court proprieties carry in personal cases of all sizes.

This diffuse background all relates to the No. 1 issue that burst forth the day after Inauguration Day in January. In brief, that top issue is the legal rigors of due process. 

Due process helps in all quarters. President Trump’s folks say the law means X. “Allies of democracy” folks say the law means Y. Trump folks continue rushing through due process. The rule of law is a rational means of enforcing due process. Filing lawsuits is fine. But that requires due care or the result can easily be more avoidance of due process. Posting daily quips on Trump’s unproved guilt has spread widely before the due process part in court has even started on the facts or the substance of applicable law.

We tell each other the accused is innocent until proved guilty so often that we forget there are no exceptions. Every time an exception to presumed innocence slips past the public, our democracy inevitably weakens a bit. Due process denied to any who is accused in effect trivializes due process and all its outcomes.

Trump talks about impeaching individual judges who issue temporary restraining orders in questions of due process. Chief Justice John Roberts has written a public letter that says impeachment of judges for making alleged mistakes is not proper procedure. Due process is done by appealing to a federal court of appeals.

“Houston, we have a problem.”