Hearsay

Attempts in several states to chip away at judicial independence were repelled by sizable majorities of discerning voters last month, but the wellspring from which they gushed is still gurgling.

Jail4Judges, perhaps the most egregious, was rejected overwhelmingly in South Dakota. Uncowed, however, the leader of the herd vowed that “people are not going to allow judges to take over the country,” and warned that he will continue to promote remediation nationally.

In Montana, three legislators floated a proposal that judges could face recall for any reason, but irregularities in their petition drive kept it off the ballot. Just another arbitrary ruling by the courts, they grumbled.

In Oregon, voters nixed a requirement that appeals court judges be elected and held accountable in diverse areas of the state. Coloradoans voted against limiting judges to 10-year terms.

The smattering of defeats represented a volley of victories for the Justice at Stake Campaign to maintain the independence and autonomy of the judiciary. Still, its leaders called the 2006 initiatives “the most threatening election yet for fair and impartial courts.”

The Chicago legal community was startled in late October by a rolling, illuminated billboard that circled the Daley Center, declaring that “Cook County is a JUDICIAL HELLHOLE.” It referred onlookers to the Web site of the American Tort Reform Association for more information.

The pre-election publicity campaign charged that “lawsuit abuse sucks the lifeblood from the economy” in an environment that is hostile to business. ATRA thus adds Cook County to the “hellhole” list that last year tarred Madison and St. Clair Counties.

In the 12th Circuit, an unhappy litigant set up a Web site to raise awareness of what he calls public corruption, abetted by the courts, and to seek lawyers who would be willing to take action against perceived injustices.

In the aggregate, all of the unrest exhibited during the past year bears out the observation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that: “Unhappiness with judges today is at a very intense level.”

Whether this is war, or just low-level terrorism, the first line of defense for judicial independence is, as always, the lawyer footsoldier.

Wherever you perch on the picket fence that separates judiciary from journalism, the recently adjudicated libel suit in Kane County raised some interesting distinctions among the applicable rights of the parties.

A dozen jurors, triers of fact and perhaps fiction, determined that the private persona of a public figure is due much the same protections as are the secular media that generally serve as watchdogs of public trust.

The alleged editorial recklessness in this matter caused $5 million worth of damage to a man's reputation, $1 million worth of humiliation and another million for potential economic hindrance.

Buried in most published accounts, but standing out in quotation marks like cankerous carbuncles were repeated allegations of “political shimmy-shammy.” What in the name of Noah Webster is that? Did the chronicler mean “shilly-shally,” which Webster defines as “hesitation or lack of decisiveness”? Probably not.

Common dictionaries are silent on “shimmy-shammy,” although the individual words “shimmy” and “shammy” have distinct and disparate meanings. “Shimmy” refers to wobbling wheels of a motor vehicle, or an American ragtime dance. “Shammy” is a homophone for the soft skin of the chamois, a European antelope.

Only in the online Urban Dictionary does one find this definition of the “S-S” word: “A family-friendly euphemism for sex used by a few Canadian disk jockeys.” That may account for its usage in the inscrutable lyrics to a few rock songs, mostly British.

Whether “shimmy-shammy” was meant as conducting oneself like a dancing antelope, or enjoying familial copulation north of the border, the appellation has humiliation written all over it.

Lessons to be learned from all this by the editorialists include that which may be found if one tries to decipher the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, under the “Minimize Harm” heading.

“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect,” the code suggests, and “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.”

And in very small print is this simple admonition: “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.”