Letter to the Editor: Case-by-case rebuttal issued by subscriber

Mr. Wollman, so my recent letter to the editor reminded you of a quote by Martin Niemoller.

Well, your letter reminded me of a quote by FDR , “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” You have my deepest sympathy. It must be just awful to live your life in such an extreme state of paranoia. Let’s take a look, one by one, at the six Supreme Court cases that you cited and see if we can’t lower your anxiety level a little.

But before we start, there are two things that we are going to have to remember:

1. When the Department of Justice was established in 1870, one of the responsibilities it was assigned was to represent the United States in all court actions. The United States was barred from hiring private attorneys.

2. It usually takes a long time for a case to reach the Supreme Court. There are all those other pesky lower courts that the case must wind its way through first. So, in many instances, by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, the person who was President at the time of the contested government action is no longer in office. Nevertheless, the current administration’s DOJ must do its job and defend the case, even if the contested action took place during another President’s administration. That’s the way our system works.

Okay, let’s begin with your first case, United States vs. Jones. The particular contested government action (the placing of a GPS on someone’s vehicle) took place in 2005. Let’s see now, who was President in 2005? Oh yeah, some fellow named George. But by the time the case actually got to the Supreme Court, Obama was President. Now, yes, Obama’s Department of Justice did defend the Bush administration’s actions. The law requires them to do so. So just who was the power grabber in this particular case? Or didn’t George Bush and the Republicans scare you as much as Obama and the Democrats do?

Now let’s look at your second case, Sackett vs. the Environmental Protection Agency. Just when was the original compliance order to the Sacketts issued by the EPA? Why, it was November 2007. That darn George again! But, of course, once again the Obama administration’s DOJ defended those government actions as required by law. Feeling any better yet?

On to case #3, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School & Church vs. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Well, it’s pretty obvious to me that you didn’t even read the case. The DOJ did NOT argue that it had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers. This case involved a teacher who sued after being terminated after developing a disability. The church claimed she couldn’t sue because she was a lay minister. The teacher insisted that she was only a teacher and not a lay minister also. So the central question before the Supreme Court was simply whether or not this teacher was only a teacher or was both a teacher and a lay minister. Yes, the Supreme Court did rule that she was also a lay minister, and therefore had no standing to sue. But is the government supporting a disabled woman suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act to regain her teaching position really all that scary to you?

Case #4 is Arizona vs. United States. Well, now, in this particular case, the United States did primarily prevail over Arizona, with the Supreme Court striking down three out of the four provisions of the Arizona law. And I would think that you, of all people, would be celebrating that they did! Do you REALLY want states to be allowed to require people to show “their papers?” Sounds kind of Nazi-like, doesn’t it? Thank heavens for the U.S. Department of Justice!

Case #5, Gabelli vs. The Securities & Exchange Commission. Once again, I have to seriously doubt that you even read this case. You claim that “the DOJ argued that it had the discretion to impose severe penalties on Americans based on events that happened years, or even decades, ago.” Let’s see, this case involved an investment broker/securities dealer who was sued by the SEC for fraud. There is currently in place a five-year statute of limitations that applies to the SEC when suing for fraud (although there is no such limitation applied to the individual investors harmed). The SEC argued that the five-year limitation should apply from the date that the fraud was discovered rather than the date the fraud was committed. The SEC lost this case – too bad as far as I'm concerned. I would prefer that the SEC be able to go after a broker/security dealer who scams his client until that broker/dealer is six feet under (Metropolitan Mortgage, anyone?) Maybe that five-year limitation is a law that needs to be changed. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Wollman, this action by the SEC took place in 2008 when, once again, good old George was president. But, of course, the law did require Obama’s DOJ to defend the Bush administration’s action.

Okay, now finally, Case #6, Arkansas Game & Fish (yes, it’s Game & Fish, not Fish & Game) Commission vs. United States. You claim that the “DOJ attempted to take property away from citizens without just compensation.” Well, not really. This case was brought by an Arkansas state agency alleging that federal flood control done by the Corp of Engineers (at the request of farmers) between the years 1993 and 2000 had damaged valuable timber on state-owned lands. Even though the Corps of Engineers’ actions took place many years ago, the case did not reach the Supreme Court until 2012. (Remember, I told you it could take a long time.) And once again, it was up to the Obama administration’s DOJ to represent the United States in court and defend the government’s actions that took place long ago. I fail to see how this constitutes a “power grab” on the part of Obama. Could you please explain that to me? Remember, the DOJ is the nation's attorney and is REQUIRED by law to defend the United States in all lawsuits brought against it.

So by now, Mr. Wollman, I’m sure (unless you are one of those “don't confuse me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind” types) you are feeling much better. See, not so scary after all, is it? Happy to have helped.

Rita (Gies) Fuller

aka the person from Spokane

P.S. And, no, I don’t think “they” are coming for me. But if they are, I sure hope we’re going to Vegas!