Justus (sic) is being served
At 1 a.m. on Saturday, April 19, the United States Supreme Court issued an extraordinary emergency order barring the federal government from removing people detained under the Federal Enemies Act to El Salvador pending further rulings from the court. There were two dissenters, Justices Alito and Thomas.
And what was the administration’s response to this order from the highest court in the land?
“The judges in law courts today, including the majority in the nation’s Highest Court, telegraph with these decisions that they have no understanding of law and its proper function and role,” [emphasis added] said Paul Ingrassia, White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security.
So, let me get this straight: That means that Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – all Trump appointees to the court – don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to the law. The question arises: Why, then, were they appointed in the first place?
This attitude that, “The law is what I want it to be, never mind what judges say,” is not much different that the beliefs of the Freeman of Montana who set up their own “government” in Garfield County in 1996. They called it “Justus Township.”
The Freemen did not recognize the authority of the federal government and declared themselves to be citizens of Justus Township, Montana. Their capitol was the ranch house on the Clark Ranch, near Brusett, just north of Jordan.
They were holed up there because their elaborate scheme of issuing bogus checks, bogus arrest warrants for local officials and liens filed against local and state officials who didn’t agree to the Freemen’s demands had fallen through. They had paid neither income taxes nor property taxes, nor had they paid their mortgage, so the ranch had been foreclosed upon.
They were led by an anti-government conman named LeRoy Schweitzer from Belgrade.
The FBI tried to serve a federal warrant issued by a judge whose authority the Freemen didn’t recognize. Besides, the Freemen had their own court system which included the supreme court of Justus Township, presided over by chief justice LeRoy Schweitzer.
The FBI was rebuffed at gunpoint. Then began an 81-day armed standoff which was ended peacefully only through the mediation efforts of former Republican State Rep. Karl Ohs (who later served as Judy Martz’s lieutenant governor).
It is one thing to see defiance of court orders by renegades who hold themselves above the same system of laws that everyone else respects, even if they may not agree with every ruling. But it is quite another for elected officials to belittle the members of the judiciary for their ability and character.
In addition to Ingrassia’s rebuke, the president himself has called for the impeachment of judges who offer opinions disfavoring the administration.
In Montana, our highest law enforcement officer, Attorney General Austin Knudson defied a Supreme Court order to return evidence and disparaged the court itself.
The Republican leadership of the Montana Legislature claimed that Montana courts “were out of control” and wrote up some 27 pieces of legislation to “rein them in.” At this point only one bill has passed. It allows political party contributions to judicial campaigns.
Americans have every right to disagree with court decisions, so do elected officials. What elected officials also have, however, is an obligation to show respect for the law and the courts, and that includes decisions they disagree with. Why? Because it is their duty to the citizens to set an example of maturity and respect for the institutions of the American government which we all depend upon.
If the powerful refuse to abide by court decisions why should the citizen bother to pay a parking ticket?
Jim Elliott served 16 years in the Montana Legislature as a state representative and state senator. He lives on his ranch in Trout Creek.