Collateral Damage and the sin of Omission

Please bear with me as I set the stage for this new blog from a right vs. wrong Biblical perspective. Let's start by discussing Collateral Damage from our wrong actions and how it affects others.

When we sin in private, we usually think our sin affects only us. But usually it doesn't.

Consider Adam, when he listened to his wife and ate from the (only) tree in the garden that God forbade. Who could his sin affect? Aside from Eve, who had already sinned, there weren't other people in the world! Talk about private! Nevertheless God says that all creation groans because of Adam's sin. Death entered the world that day and we all, including the animals, die because of one man's sin. Call it "collateral damage." That may not sound fair when babies die, but that's the reality of sin.

And so it may be with Judge Hinson and his sin of violating the 60-day Rule and falsifying affidavits. While Judge Hinson probably thought his sin was private and would only affect him (but surely it has affected his victims as well as his family), there may be "collateral damage" for one of his colleagues on the bench: Presiding judge Brutinel. That's what we'll explore in this particular blog.

If you don't know, Judge Robert M. Brutinel, a Superior court judge in Prescott, Arizona, has applied for a vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court.

Now, Arizona uses a very public vetting process, where public testimony is not only sought, but dialogue with Commission members encouraged. (The latter affirmed by Chief Justice McGregor at the June 3 Judicial Nomination Commission meeting.) So let's take this to the people as we're supposed to. Is Judge Brutinel ready to be a Supreme Court Justice at this time?

I say, "No," based on the way he, as presiding judge, handled—or did not handle—Judge Hinson. And for that, we have to resume a Biblical discussion of right vs. wrong.

Not to condone Catholicism, but the Catholic church has it right when it says there are "sins of omission" as well as "sins of commission." The former occur when you know the right thing to do but don't do it, as God tells us in His Bible.

It's obvious we aren't to commit sins of commission. Those are the "Thou shall not's." It's only as you start to mature that you realize there are also things - right things - you should proactively be doing to please God. Like maybe being involved in your government, blogging about judges?

[If you want to point fingers, I confess, I have committed sins of omission. With the Spirit's help, I am sinning less.]

Now, we expect all candidates for the Supreme Court will have kept the law, i.e., not committed notable sins of commission. What, then, distinguishes one candidate from another? Ahhh... that would be not committing sins of omission. We expect exceptional candidates for the Supreme Court to not be failing to do right things. Which brings us back to Judge Brutinel.

Judge Brutinel has been the presiding judge in Prescott. While that may be admirable and prestigious, it also brings responsibility. It's also a test, of sorts. How did the presiding judge do?

He has been presiding over Judge Hinson while Judge Hinson was egregiously violating the law. In a sense, the presiding judge was Judge Hinson's boss. What did the presiding judge do about his law breaking subordinate? From the record, it doesn't appear that Judge Brutinel did much.

What's worse, Judge Brutinel sat on the Commission for Judicial Conduct while his subordinate was violating the law and violating the rights of his victim litigants. While he (Judge Brutinel) might have tried informal discipline on Judge Hinson, it was WAY too late for that. We know now that, like the United Nations warning North Korea, the Commission had been warning Judge Hinson of his Constitutional violations as early as 2001! You see what good that did. Instead, he could have insisted that Judge Hinson not collect his pay until Hinson complied with the law - as the law itself requires!

Now, I don't know if Judge Brutinel didn't know the right thing to do or simply didn't do it. Whichever, neither is acceptable for someone who wants to be a Justice in our Supreme Court. I'm sure it's hard to discipline a pal, but both God and man's law require impartiality.

Nothing personal against Judge Brutinel. But from the record, it appears Judge Brutinel isn't ready yet for prime time. I hope that you, like me, want the best - most ethical - judges to be on our Supreme Court. I don't know who that is, but the Commission uses a process of elimination to weed out who it is not.

If you agree, please contact the various members of the Judicial Nominating Commission and tell them so. They say they welcome your comments.