“Never once” in his 15 years of serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did Judge Thomas B. Griffith “see any of these people who had been appointed by presidents from Carter through Trump” cast a vote driven by “partisan priors.”
“No one was in there saying, I want to win one for Trump. … Judges don’t think that way … I’m standing as a witness,” said Griffith before an audience of students and faculty at Utah State University Tuesday.
“Now, pundits think they do. Senators think they do. Presidents think they do, but I’m telling you, they don’t. I never saw it once, OK?”
Griffith’s comments came as part of the USU President’s Forum on Conflict and Conflict Transformation, which aims to “foster a culture of respect, open-minded inquiry and thoughtful dialogue.” Griffith titled his remarks, “Navigating Political Polarization: A Call to Constitutional Action.”
Defending the judiciary
Griffith acknowledged that judges don’t always get things right, adding “we have a system in place when a judge makes a mistake, the decision gets reviewed at a couple of levels.” He pushed back on terms like “judicial insurrectionists” or “judicial coup” applied to rulings people dislike. He said such talk “undermines the public’s confidence in something in which they have supreme confidence.”
“Our federal judiciary is comprised of men and women who are committed to doing impartial justice. They’re not there to do politics,” he said.
“If you think we are partisan hacks, read our opinions,” the judge said, citing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. If you do that, Griffith said, “what you will see is good people wrestling with difficult issues.”
“I wish they would stop labeling judges by the president who appointed them.”
Humility to listen
Griffith’s remarks focused on other things people can do to make a difference today.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken” the judge said, citing Oliver Cromwell’s plea to consider other perspectives than one’s own.
“It sounds like we’re giving a Sunday school lesson,” Griffith quipped with a smile — but emphasized: “These are moral issues. What type of person do we want to be to preserve this democracy. It comes down to character.”
Character foundations
How should we learn this kind of character? asked Dr. Michael Hastings, a member of British Parliament, on a panel discussion afterwards.
“It’s the institutions, right? Family, church, schools, it’s got to happen there,” Griffith responded. “I wish it would come from our national leaders. But I don’t think we can wait for that.”
Universities play a “hugely important role to broaden minds,” Hastings added — helping students “meet with people they may not instinctively feel comfortable with.”
Griffith cited Biola University President Barry H. Corey’s teaching: “I want all of my students to learn to be student activists, but after four years of sitting down at the table and listening to other people’s views.”
Constitutional foundations
While most emphasize the Constitution’s protection of rights, Griffith cited Yuval Levin as arguing the most important function of the Constitution goes beyond this to its creating “a structure of government that tells us how to act together when we disagree.”
This is “what was intended in the Constitution,” Hastings agreed, “that communities of difference learn, know and treasure and abide with each other.”
“When you win an election, you don’t win a mandate to get everything you want,” Griffith said, citing John Woods Jr. as saying “the true project of democracy is not winning an election. It’s living with each other, regardless of whether you win or lose.”
“Unless you get a super majority,” he added, “the only way you can get things done under our constitutional structure is by building coalitions, negotiating and bargaining.”
Dinner diplomacy
Griffith cited the framer’s concerns with “faction” as the greatest danger for our constitution — something called “hyperpartisanship” today.
“So the question for all of us is: ‘Am I contributing to that? Am I hyper-partisan?’ If you are, repent!” the judge said, prompting laughter. “It’s not good. Don’t do that.”
He then challenged everyone: “Invite to dinner or to coffee or to breakfast, somebody who views the world completely differently than you.
“And just listen.
“If we don’t try and understand our fellow citizens, it’s not going to work.”
Mason Wilkins, an undergraduate studying applied economics, admitted he’s distanced himself from politics and didn’t really know what he thought and whether it even “mattered that much.”
But hearing Griffith’s emphasis on personal efforts beyond what national leaders do got him intrigued about doing more.
“I’ve also kind of stepped back politically,” said Anna Knight, an undergraduate studying wildlife ecology and management. “It just seems like a very big, scary topic sometimes.” She liked the message of how people who disagree can learn to work together and “coexist peacefully-ish.”
‘We need to get good at this’
It’s very easy to say this is a “naive ambition” or a “crazy dream,” Hastings remarked at the end, but arguing without change, “we’ll end up demolishing ourselves and one another simply by relentless accusation.”
“Ultimately, preserving the Constitution turns out to be a matter of the heart,” Griffith said, citing the “secular scripture” once offered by Abraham Lincoln: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. The passion they have strained. It must not break our bonds of affection.”
“That’s hard work,” Griffith said. “It’s not going to happen in Washington. It’s not going to happen from a talking head on cable.”
“For all patriots who want to preserve and defend the Constitution,” he said, “the way to do that is to work on our bonds of affection.”
“We need to get good at this,” he said. “Can it be done? I hope so. I pray so.”