Scrutiny comes naturally when the public is afforded an up-close look at any institution, but the Minnesota Supreme Court held up very well in the local spotlight during this week’s business trip to Brainerd.
The nine justices heard oral arguments in a legal case and then answered questions from Brainerd High School students on Wednesday. On Tuesday they informally mixed with the public at a community dinner at Central Lakes College’s Brainerd campus.
Although the judiciary is far and away the least visible and least understood branch of government, the high court’s visit shed considerable light on its work and on how it goes about that work.
More than one Brainerd area observer marveled at the collegiality of these smart, opinionated and politically diverse individuals. The issues they deal with are potentially every bit as divisive as those before the Minnesota Legislature but the court strategically works hard at maintaining civility. No doubt, they are passionate about their ideals but they’re able to judge cases without the rancor that has become the norm in the political world.
If the good-natured ribbing they gave each other at Tuesday’s dinner was just a polite act then they’re very accomplished actors. They spoke of respecting contrasting viewpoints, professionalism and a commitment to fairness.
One justice, G. Barry Anderson, expressed pride in his background as an attorney, despite the popularity of lawyer jokes. Attorneys, he pointed out, can be found volunteering their time at a host of worthwhile organizations in most Minnesota communities.
The two-day visit made at least one observer wish the other two branches could learn a few lessons from the judiciary.



Comments (6)
Add commentSounds good on it's surface
but how many Justices legislate wasteful government spending and advocate additional government regulations?
Your opinions aren't as rock solid as you'd like to think Dispatch.
Jeff Czeczok
Earth to Vincent:
Instead of yet another of your usual fact-free rants, could you provide a list of the "wasteful government spending" that you claim were "legislated" by the Justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court?
For extra credit, how about a list of the "additional government regulations" that you claim were "advocated" by the Court?
Universe to Mission
Mission, you really waited a month to pull that one out of your behind?
Where did I say State Supreme Court Justices or Courts legislated any laws leading to increased government regulations or wasteful government spending?
Oh Mighty One, please, grace me with your wisdom and point out my fallacies for all the World to witness.
Jeff Czeczok
Jeffie and the Supreme Court
You demanded to know how many Justices of the Supreme Court "legislate wasteful government spending" and how many Justices "advocate additional government regulations".
Apparently you found none and your opinions aren't as rock solid as you'd like to think
Q.E.D.
Mission, read: "The two-day
Mission, read: "The two-day visit made at least one observer wish the other two branches could learn a few lessons from the judiciary."
My, "how many Justices legislate" question, is rhetorical. Duh.
I actually make a point with that sentence Mission. It'll require reading the entire story and grasping the concept. I know you can do it.
...now see if you can find it.
Feigning misunderstanding does not become you Mish.
Jeff
"rhetorical" you say?
"rhetorical" as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a synonym for "bombastic, flatulent, fustian, gaseous, gassy, grandiloquent, oratorical, orotund, windy"
Take your pick...