Our judges - human, all too human

A reflection on the human side of judges, comparing the ideological divides in the US and Pakistan’s Supreme Courts.

Listen to article

A bus carrying politicians was driving down a mountainous road when it ran off the road and crashed into a ditch. An old farmer, from a nearby village, investigated the fatal scene. He dug up a large hole and buried the politicians. The next day, a local police officer came out, examined the crashed bus, then he stared at the large grave and asked the old farmer, "Were they all dead?" The old farmer replied, "Well, some of them said they weren't, but you know how politicians lie."

Jokes aside, politicians have acquired a notorious reputation for lying and betraying their constituents. In the words of Nietzsche, they are human, all too human. On the other hand, our judges, especially justices of the Supreme Court, are expected to be an epitome of dignity and honour. They are seen as erudite scholars of law and justice who are always busy solving complex legal problems as competing attorneys present their cases before them. However, the decorum of the chambers of the Pakistan Supreme Court has been shaken time and again throughout its history. Most recently, a squabble surfaced in the form of a letter penned by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The letter is replete with derogatory and disparaging remarks aimed at the then retiring Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Did the letter thrust a deeper fissure in the already jarring disposition of the highest court of the land? Our judges too are human, all too human.

What about the justices of the United States Supreme Court? Last year, about 50 per cent of the US Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. But what about the ideological differences that sometimes cause the justices to be at loggerheads with each other? As Noah Feldman, a law professor at the Harvard Law School, notes, the justices of the US Supreme Court can be divided into three categories: arch conservatives, centrist conservatives, and liberals. Out of the nine Supreme Court justices, there are three justices in each category. Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, is at the conservative end of the spectrum while Justice Sonya Sotomayor is at the liberal end. The centrists like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh switch sides depending on how they feel about a particular case.

So, here's the question: do the justices, with all their ideological and philosophical differences, ever get along? The simple answer is: yes, they do get along - at a social level. "When we disagree, our pens are sharp," says Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "but on a personal level, we never translate that into our relationship with one another."

Once, the late Justice Antonin Scalia (a conservative) was asked how he could be such dear friends with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a liberal), he replied, "I attack ideas, I don't attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas. If you can't separate the two, you'd better get another day job." The two justices were sometimes seen together at the opera at the Kennedy Center, as reported by The Washington Post. Mind you, these two justices were on the opposite sides of the 2000 Bush v. Gore 5-4 decision.

I am sure Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will agree with Justice Stephen Breyer, a retired US Supreme Court Justice, who once wrote, "If justices who disagree so profoundly can do so respectfully, perhaps it is possible for our politically divided country to do the same."