To the Editor:
Justice of the Peace Claudia Brown has given us an opportunity to examine our views of social activism and duly constituted governance. Social activism has pricked our moral and ethical conscience, and it has set in motion the correction of cultural wrongs. Social activism moves to change laws, while its close kinsman, civil disobedience, intentionally violates laws to bring about change.
Our Founding Fathers did both. They did, however, accept the notion that civil disobedience has consequences. I reject the acceptability of either social activism or civil disobedience that destroys property or injures life. Claudia Brown’s “sarcastic” bond-setting did neither, but it did raise the question of the role of our judicial system.
Social activists run for public office and use that office to legislate desired change. The judicial court system should not be the place for social activism. It troubles me that Supreme Court justices are nominated and selected, not on the basis of their understanding of the law of the land expressed in the United States Constitution, rather on the basis of political and/or social views.
That’s what the legislative branch of federal government, as well as state and local lawmaking bodies, are designed to do.
Justice of the Peace Claudia Brown appears to be an activist. I applaud her right to express her views (which may have merit), but I disagree with her assumption that her court decisions should be governed by those views rather than the laws she pledged to uphold.