Raphael Morghen: Jurisprudence (18th-19th century)

"Even those who assault our Jurisprudence deserve justice. Decency demands it."

We hold our judicial system sacred, or we have. It has seemed imperiled lately, if only due to the sudden incursion of indecency into her hallowed halls. Our Jurisprudence was the store of our society’s civic Decency, though it has lately seen repeated attempts to degrade it. These have been mainly unsuccessful, if only due to the native ineptness as lawyers of the agents of indecency attempting to intrude. They have filed motions that don’t pass muster and suits that almost always prove frivolous. Our budding Department of Injustice turns out to actually be a department of dunces and indecencies in practice. They seem to believe that they can make anything so by merely declaring it so. However, our Jurisprudence, by which I mean our legal philosophy and long traditions, usually renders that functionally impossible, thank heavens.

Between judges chosen for their partiality and a SCOTUS half dedicated to indecency, our civic Decency has sometimes been taking it in the shorts. These sleights have thus far proven to be far from the rule, so the vaunted Rule of Law seems to be holding, though our justice system has been showing signs of stress. Each of the Enlightenment thinkers insisted in their time that enlightenment depended upon people of high moral character in order to function. Nevertheless, some individuals of the lowest moral character have managed to infiltrate our Congress and, consequently, our Courts. They’ve set about making jokes of even the most common Decencies, corrupting pretty much everything they touch. Still, the courts have largely deflected these assaults, though they seem to have been riding to our rescue on the slowest of slow horses.

Courts deliberate. They were never designed to make rapid decisions; Decent decisions demand deliberation. Honest people must ask honest questions seeking honest answers to maintain our historical Jurisprudence. Less prudent decisions are sometimes welcomed, but they do not tend to age well. They often crumble under even the usual forces of nature. The more haphazard decisions tend to get revisited, for they remain troublesome even after what were supposed to have been final decisions. Also, there’s no guarantee that every plaintiff and prosecutor performs with equally highbrow principles. Unprincipled players have always bedeviled Decency, even our judiciary. It was never written that Jurisprudence should prove easy. It might rightly be extremely difficult, close to impossible, for it was posited as ideals. It might prove worthy of every hassle experienced attempting to perfect, and sometimes failing to improve, its inherent imperfections.

Jurisprudence’s blindnesses, its scales, and sword do not comprise the final word on Decency in our society. They attempt to maintain some semblance of order as we advance, even though they sometimes introduce wobbles instead. Decency was seemingly never always as decent as desired. It existed aspirationally before it ever managed to manifest and find balance. Its existence, like our Jurisprudence, might be best imagined as attempts at balancing rather than achieving any stable, balanced state, for both Decency and Jurisprudence remain works in progress, ever defending against corrupting forces. Both institutions are human in that they are the product of people trying to work together, and sometimes, too, the result of corrupting intrusions. Neither Decency nor Jurisprudence, though, has any need to be entirely on the defensive. They remain capable of maintaining their traditionally assertive position, asserting what remains true and rejecting their opposites, whoever champions them, for whatever reason.

When some hapless incumbent asserts some delusional power, well-entrenched forces oppose. The intruders tend to be less well-versed in precedents and often hold little understanding of the procedures by which laws can change. We frequently complain about how slowly our legal system works, though speed is nobody’s friend where Decency’s concerned. We are creating a legacy, not merely for our present, but for our progeny’s future. Those attempting to employ indecency to repair their past should find themselves stymied. Those who wish to pervert Decency to respond to a trumped-up emergency deserve neither Decency nor justice, but they get it just the same. It might not seem fair when someone appears to hide behind their freedom of speech rights to spout insurrectionist crap, but it’s better to hear what they’re up to than to suffer a muted surprise attack. Decency deserves justice, even when our Jurisprudence seems like it’s bending over backwards to achieve it. Even those who assault our Jurisprudence deserve justice. Decency demands it.

©2025 by David A. Schmaltz - all rights reserved

Tags: #Decency, #PureSchmaltz