Before the fall of the Roman Empire, the poet Juvenal wrote a series of 16 satirical poems in five books, appropriately called the “Satires.” His essays had titles like “What Room is there For Genius?” and “The Dishonest and Dishonorable,” in which Juvenal commented on the foibles of society, covering everything from politics, power and social engagement. In his lament about the erosion of civic duty and public service, as power was passed to an already comfortable–and thus disengaged–populace, he created the phrase “Panem et Circenses” (Bread and Circuses). It described the “selfishness of the common people” who “abdicated their duties to be informed” and no longer require excellence or truth. Thus, all a Roman politician had to do to win their favor is keep them fed and, more importantly, entertained. And history always repeats itself.
SCENE: A metropolitan area, where three young tourists, TAD, PAT, and BROOKE find a dilapidated museum.
TAD: Hey, look at this old building! What do you think it is?
PAT: There’s a rusty plate on the front… it says E PLURIBUS UNUM.
BROOKE: What does that mean?
TAD: I think it’s French for “Dog Onions.”
BROOKE: No, I remember it has something to do with the former United States. Like a slogan.
TAD: Okay but what’s in the building? Is it open?
PAT: Hey guys, it is open. This sign says, Museum of …something called …the Rule of Law. Come on, let’s go in.
[An ancient GUIDE turns as he hears the front door creak open]
GUIDE: May I help you?
PAT: Uh. Well, are you open? We’d like to see what is in here.
GUIDE: Yes, we’re open. But few people care about the past. Are you sure you want to come in?
TAD: Sure. Do you have a wine bar for the dog onions?
GUIDE: No, this is a memorial museum to a culture that lasted 250 years.
BROOKE: Wow, what happened? Earthquake? Plague?
GUIDE: No. The same thing that has happened to successful cultures throughout human history. Success led to boredom, greed, inattention, and then authoritarianism. Social failure inevitably followed.
PAT: So, … what is this Rule of Law stuff?
GUIDE: Follow me, I’ll show you around. Here is the chamber of Constitution. It’s where the people founded a country that would unite individual colonies with a central government under an agreement to be governed by the same rules, which applied to everyone.
TAD: Ha! … like that could work!
GUIDE: It actually worked very well for the most part.
BROOKE: Who was in charge of making sure everyone followed the rules?
GUIDE: Well, this society created a judiciary, which was bound by precedent.
PAT: “Precedent?” is that like a type of rope? We use rope to tie up heretics.
TAD: Yeah, they’re dangerous.
GUIDE: No, back then, precedent meant each generation of judges did their best to develop rights and interpretations of the law that built upon their decisions to harmonize them with the founder’s intent.
BROOKE: Harmonize? Judges sang?
GUIDE: No. Precedent helped other judges, lawyers and even citizens know what a law meant, and that saved everyone a lot of time.
BROOKE: But what if people needed a different meaning, could they hire their own judge?
GUIDE: Well, you’re getting ahead of me, but yes, that’s what happened.
TAD: You’d think that something as important as selecting a big-time judge would have been reviewed by some sort of group of experts.
GUIDE: Indeed, young man! There were very vibrant committees of informed lawyers to review appointments, and they would give their opinions to the selectors on whether a candidate was qualified.
TAD: Then there were great judges every time?
GUIDE: Sadly, no. The people in charge only wanted one type of judge–a judge who would reliably rule for them. So, to avoid the determination that their nominees were unqualified, they abandoned those committees, and of course, demonized the committees as unfair.
PAT: But what about precedent? Wouldn’t that restrict decisions?
GUIDE: Well, it should have, but it didn’t. Anytime they needed to diverge from precedent, they made up new theories, like originalism, or that old decisions were simply obsolete. And they slowed the appeal process to an unbearable crawl, which made continuity and predictability useless.
BROOKE: See, guys, how lucky we are nowadays that Supreme President makes all these decisions.
GUIDE: Well, how does your Supreme President get to the truth?
TAD: To the what?
GUIDE: The truth. The purpose of the legal system was to determine facts,… the true facts, and see how the law applied to those facts.
BROOKE: That’s boring. We don’t waste time anymore on that stuff.
PAT: Yeah, old man. Look here, we get the truth right here on our personal devices. Whatever comes on here is what we believe. Fast and convenient. Taa Daa!
GUIDE: Do you ever wonder if it’s correct?
TAD: No. Where have you been? It’s illegal to disagree. People who disagree are imprisoned, like they should be.
GUIDE: May I ask you a question? Does anyone study United States history anymore?
PAT: No, of course not. It’s all fake and made up.
GUIDE: Who says it’s all fake?
PAT: The Council of Truth. We’re not allowed to believe, or even question, their Sacred Book of Cofefe. I’m up to Chapter 7: Heroic Festival of January 6th.
GUIDE: Are any of you interested in verifying the truth?
BROOKE: No. Why should we? It’s just how life works nowadays. Actually, relying on the Book of Cofefe leaves a lot of time to go to circuses.
To my beloved colleagues. Please vote. I am so proud to be a lawyer. I am proud that our American legal profession strives for truth. I am proud that we are a source of analysis and informed opinion. Millions of our fellow Americans look to us for guidance and problem-solving. That makes us, undoubtedly, the most important profession in America right now.
We should pledge to use our skills of analysis and perspective, to analyze each candidate with the same dedication we give our clients. Does this candidate have a reputation for seeking truth? What do people who worked with them say? Is this candidate’s vision for our future compatible with America’s expectation of rights and equal treatment?
Most importantly, if these questions trigger you with negative reaction, it is likely because the answers to that analysis make you uncomfortable about your choice.
As Polonius advised Hamlet, “To thine own self be true,” I’m hoping and praying that my wonderful colleagues will be true to the Rule of Law.
Keep the faith.