Dan-
You know, I've loved Hyde's floor speeches, especially last fall's summation to the House. (Paraphrasing 'We are the heirs to 3000 years of the rule of law, given by God to Moses to lead a slave people into freedom...' Stirring stuff, on the face of it.) He's good; very good, in fact, if one suspends all disbelief and brings no previous knowledge to bear on his assertions.
So, while you see current politics as a blood sport, and I don't disagree, I also see the impeachment proceedings themselves more as a dramatic exercise: some morality play, yes, but much more often an admixture of kitchen sink drama and Ionesco's "The Chairs," all set to a Cohan tune.
Yesterday's Hyde soliloquy had its moments, I'm pleased to say, but finally had me swearing at the radio. I was willing to play along with his egregious internal contradictions -- for entertainment purposes only -- and the quote from Gibbon defeated all comers, but Hyde's forays into the import and legacy of acquittal left me glad to bid him adieu. [Exit, pursued by a bear, stage far right.]
First the contradictions. Standard lines from the managers' side have included the chestnuts "no man is above the law" and "failure to remove the President paves the way to the return of monarchy." Rep. Hyde inveighed along precisely these lines from the well yesterday. For instance:
... you raise the most serious questions of whether the President is in fact subject to the law or whether we are beginning a restoration of the divine right of kings. The issues we are concerned with have consequences far into the future because the real damage is not to the individuals involved, but to the American system of justice and especially the principle that no one is above the law.
Boilerplate, really, and of course those opposed to removal could rework most of it for use as a justification for rejecting the House articles.
But Hyde's earlier rhetoric had already mooted these arguments, or perhaps vice versa. In an effort to rally the Senators to capital 'j' Justice, Hyde cited a play, "The Winslow Boy," and its story of a favorable ruling against long odds:
...in 1946 a British playwright, Terrance Rattigan, wrote a play based on a true experience that happened in England in 1910. The play was called 'The Winslow Boy.' And the story--as I say, a true story--involved a young 13-year-old lad who was kicked out of the Royal Naval College for having forged somebody else's signature on a postal money order. Of course, he claimed he was innocent, but he was summarily dismissed and his family, of very modest means, could not afford legal counsel, and it was a very desperate situation. Sir Edward Carson, the best lawyer of his time--barrister, I suppose--got interested in the case and took it on pro bono and lost all the way through the courts.
Finally, he had no other place to go, but he dug up an ancient remedy in England called 'petition of right.' You ask the King for relief. And so Carson wrote out five pages of reasons why a petition of right should be granted and, lo and behold, it got past the Attorney General, it got to the King. The King read it, agreed with it, and wrote across the front of the petition, 'Let right be done. Edward VII.'
I have always been moved by that phrase. I saw the movie; I saw the play; and I have the book. And I am still moved by that phrase, 'Let right be done.' I hope when you finally vote that will move you, too.
In other words, Hyde recapped the story of a litigant who had superb legal counsel, an unbiased court, and full, due process access to appeal. The courts' ruling, however, was set aside by a single man above the law of the formal judiciary, and a King, no less. Rep. Hyde would have the Senate be guided by the Winslow precedent and insist that justice would result. Not for the first time, the House managers claimed privileged access to truth inviolate, and begged the question of removing the President.
So, Dan, you're right to stand fast against the Republicans' opportunistic claims to 'the rule of law' and its implication that all others must be proceeding only by partisan denial of the demands of justice. Time and again, such Republicans -- in self-righteous thrall -- have impugned the moral, ethical and patriotic character of those that dare oppose them. They demonstrate base contempt for their fellow citizens. This calumny I will not countenance, and hereby repudiate.
And I take my place along side my fellow Americans -- whose fairness and decency and I have never doubted -- on the principled democratic foundation that we never, never ceded. Together we demand, in our name, let right be done.
God Bless America,
ian [Exit, wearing hip boots, for Sardi's] |
