Judge Dreadful

Judicial Overreach: The Nevada judge who told MSNBC to include no-hoper Dennis Kucinich in this week's Democratic presidential debate or he'd bar the telecast reminds us of how the buttinskies of the bench have to be stopped.

"Judge Dredd" is the comic book superhero, played by Sylvester Stallone in the mid-'90s on the silver screen, who in a violent city of the future dealt out instant justice to criminals, acting as on-the-spot cop, judge, jury and executioner all in one.

It's part of human nature that most of us feel we could do a pretty good job if allowed to be a Judge Dredd. We could make binding decisions about lots of different aspects of the lives of others, from crime to the most inconsequential disagreements, and they'd be the right decisions. No doubt that's part of the appeal of "The People's Court" and other such TV programs.

But regarding most things that go on in life, thankfully, even real judges are not allowed to intrude -- and that includes most of the many "unfair" things that happen to almost all of us.

The judiciary, like politicians, can't perfect man's existence and should not be allowed to try. Unfortunately, nobody ever let Senior Clark County District Court Judge J. Charles Thompson know that judges shouldn't meddle in every supposed wrong they come across.

After New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination a week ago, MSNBC decided to disinvite the far-left Kucinich and have only major candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards participate in its Las Vegas debate Tuesday night.

Kucinich sued. It wasn't fair that his radical take on Iraq, health care and free trade wouldn't be represented in that forum, he argued. Judge Thompson, seeing a great wrong committed against Nevada voters by a powerful media conglomerate, ruled in Kucinich's favor. (NBC immediately filed an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.)

"I don't think that just deciding that just three is good enough for the state of Nevada is a legitimate basis" for keeping Kucinich out of the debate, Thompson declared. "I'm somewhat offended that a legitimate candidate was invited to a debate and then uninvited under circumstances that appear to be that they just decided to exclude him."

We're no fans of NBC or any other establishment media institution. But if a TV network changes its mind and "just decides" on three candidates in a debate, what business does a local judge have being "somewhat offended," concluding that it has no "legitimate basis" (whatever exactly that means) and using his governmental powers to stop them?

What law did MSNBC violate exactly? MSNBC or FOX or CNN can have a presidential debate in Vegas featuring only Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck if it wants to -- or so we thought in a free country.

The McCain-Feingold law regulating campaign advertising opened the door to laws and courts restricting political speech, which the Constitution is supposed to protect. Now, local judges think they can dictate who appears in a privately sponsored presidential debate -- another governmental regulation of political speech.

Alexander Hamilton famously predicted that "in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

We can see today how naive that notion was. Courts, it turns out, can be very dangerous. The anti-Federalists had it right in warning that "there is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors."

More than ever, it is vital at all levels of government to have judges who know their job is to judge, based on duly enacted law -- not to try to perfect society.