Recently, I read a news story in the
NYTimes about how the conservative right is trying to influence Bush's choice of a Supreme Court Judge. For a little background, a sitting judge on the Supreme Court has announced her retirement and all of Washington is now abuzz with whom President Bush will nominate to a position, which if one so wishes, one can occupy until they have to scrape one's festering corpse off the chair.
The story outlines the attempts by the far right to make sure that they know the 'package' completely before nominating them. In the past, some conservative candidates nominated to the court by republican prezs have
occasionally ruled against their right-wing supporters. The right does not want this to happen again. On reading the story, I was strongly reminded of another story written by Munshi Premchand (I think) which we studied in school. It's about two well-to-do friends, A and B who were farmers. A became the
Sarpanch (Village Council Chief) of the village. B once perpetrated an injustice upon a third guy. He thought that even if the guy took the case to the
Panchayat (Village Council), his friend will never rule against him. But when that happened, the
Sarpanch ruled against B. This destroyed their friendship. B began hating A and they became enemies. Some years later, B was chosen to be the
sarpanch. At the time, A had to bring a case in the council against another villager who owed him some money. Several villagers warned him that he could not expect justice from B. But he said he knew B and trusted his innate goodness. B was ecstatic that he had gotten the chance to pay back A. But as he sat on the council, the full weight of the responsibility of his position settled upon his shoulders. He found it impossible to let his personal feelings and biases color his judgement. He then realized how his friend must have felt when he sat in this chair. He apologized to his friend.
This story needs to be disseminated not only amongst right wing fundamentalists but among liberals too. The ideal judge is one who does not let ideological beliefs affect his judgement. He or she should be open only to evidence and substantial arguments, not to ideological pressures. He or she should respect the right of others to have a point of view just as he or she has their own.
As a person who likes politics and derives a weird kind of pleasure from the ironies, corruptions and twists of politics, I am going to enjoy this process of selecting a new judge.
PS: My interest in Premchand is also rekindled. Am looking where I can get a few of his novels and stories.
Bush
#%^@#*&!#%