The Supreme Court can no longer hide behind its locked doors and mysterious black robes, and like all major organizations in the country, it must answer questions concerning the decisions of its members. Last week, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist ordered that a study be conducted to evaluate the ethics of the court's justices. This decision comes on the heels of incidents in which both Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia have been criticized for possibly violating the appearance of impartiality. It would be hard for anyone to argue that judges -especially Supreme Court justices-should not be held to the highest possible standard when it comes to remaining unbiased and rendering fair decisions.
The Supreme Court is the country's last bastion of truth. The court has the final say concerning matters of great importance to the country or those that are controversial. It is unacceptable that a justice who wields so much power to be able to accept anything-from free rides or an invite on a hunting trip-and still maintain that there is no allegiance to the giver. This panel will provide a watchdog group to make sure that Supreme Court justices do not violate the high ethical standards associated with their office. Justices are human and are prone to errors like the rest of society. Any measures that can be taken to put fears of improper behavior to rest should be pursued, and this panel will accomplish this goal.
A double standard
It is no secret that college campuses are hotbeds of political activism. It is also well-known that the war on terror has provided a large number of graphic images, most of which have been broadcast on TV. While these two truths might not seem closely related, they have been forever joined following a brewing controversy at the University of California San Diego. Daniel Watts, a junior, has been blocked from showing the video of the beheading of American citizen Nicholas Berg.
The video of the execution had aired once on Warren College TV, but the university stepped in and prohibited it from re-airing. Because of a policy concerning the airing of indecent material
the university was well within their rights, but this issue isn't about who has power over the channel's content. The university is guilty of hypocrisy. It is foolish for the university to bar this broadcast after it had previously authorized another student group to show the video of the execution on university property. The only real problem with the airing of the video was that the channel that carried the image could be seen at a grade school as well as the campus. Instead of barring the video from airing, the university could have merely ran the video at a time when no grade school children could view it.
A state's right to choose
Every few years the country seems to get wrapped up in some controversial social issue, which comes to the forefront of the American landscape. This year it would be hard to argue that gay marriage hasn't already claimed the title, but it was only a few short years ago when assisted suicide was the country's biggest debate. Until now, the public has seemed to forget about this issue, but it was recently brought back to the forefront. A federal court of appeals has upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and has politely told the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft to not meddle in the affairs of the state. The ruling of the court is far more than legally just, it is a prime example of democracy in action. The issue was presented to voters in Oregon, and the majority decision stands as law. While this decision will surely affect future assisted suicide controversies, its effects will be felt on numerous levels.
It would be virtually impossible to have both sides of this issue to agree on a compromise, so although it is cliché, everyone will have to agree to disagree. However, all people should have the right to do with their life what they feel is right. Just as this government should not impose on states' rights -except when a federal law and state law contradict each other -no government should limit individual rights. While this issue is complicated by different religious and legal viewpoints, ultimately the decision is a personal one. Death is inevitable, and there is no shame or guilt in accepting the inevitable. 17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
