Thick-skinned bench

Nosy Tarsee’s little birdie says a certain gentleman of the Upper Chamber, then holding the biggest gavel in the room, had quite the season of opinions.

It began right after the Court’s ruling that tossed out a certain impeachment complaint. In ambush interviews, on a news channel, in text blasts to reporters, and in a late-evening Facebook post, he let fly.

Among the items on his list: the ruling “practically amends” the Constitution; it is “judicial legislation;” and impeachment is now an “impossible dream.” He said the writer of the decision was unfamiliar with congressional rules. He also tossed in a Latin maxim about being false in one thing and false in everything. A “freshman law student” would know better, he added. He said he would now back Charter change, since the Court seemed so keen on touching the Constitution. And that the justices had “a different agenda.”

Ouch, said the gallery. Surely the robes would reach for the contempt gavel.

A group of petitioners did just that, calling it grossly disrespectful and a threat to the public confidence in the Court. The respondent replied that he was merely doing his job, that he had said he would submit to the Court’s wisdom, and that nobody had been incited to do anything except perhaps argue at dinner.

The En Banc, speaking through the very member who bore the brunt of the barbs, dismissed the petition.

The Court said political speech gets the highest protection. Harsh, provocative, and critical comments about the judiciary remain protected unless they incite lawless action, carry actual malice, or create a clear and present danger.

It noted that the speaker made his remarks when asked by the press, that he did not seek the limelight, and that other officials also weighed in without the sky falling. It also said that a losing party’s grumbling is a “natural reaction,” and that courts should not be so “thin-skinned.”

There’s more. The tribunal admitted that a senator’s words carry weight and that public officials are expected to exercise restraint. But it said the Court must also show restraint when asked to punish public officials.

The decision ended with a gentle sermon: leaders should criticize with “sobriety and respect,” and democracy rests on accepting “robust and unfettered criticism even when it is directed at us.”

The ponente could have settled a personal score but chose not to, and that was the whole point.

Another remarked that few institutions pass on a chance to punish those who mock them.

Is the Bench making a show of magnanimity, or is this a genuine lesson in constitutional humility?