The Supreme Court Erred

The Supreme Court Erred

The US Supreme Court Thursday, May 29th, 1997 -- If the nine justices of the Supreme Court want to know whether civil litigation against a sitting president disrupts his ability to represent the people, they ought to take a field trip to Europe and follow Bill Clinton as his planned "Week of Triumph" for America is overshadowed by red-faced questions from the press about Paula Corbin Jones.

President Clinton was in Paris Tuesday to focus public attention on the centerpiece of his foreign policy -- the expansion of NATO. Instead, he was the target of humiliating questions about the personal impact of Ms. Jones' sexual harassment litigation. Mr. Clinton did not answer these questions directly, but his aides did nothing but, seeking cover from an onslaught of tabloid-like interrogatories from the "serious" foreign and US press.

The same thing happened yesterday in the Netherlands where the President was highlighting the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan -- the program that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Today, President Clinton is in England meeting with their new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, where an afternoon press conference is certain to be ruined by vigorous pursuit of the "scandal."

Even the President's private counsel, Bob Bennett, had to get into the act with a vain attempt to focus the media on the histroric nature of Mr. Clinton's European journey saying, "The President is very happy and excited about events taking place abroad and that is the focal point of what he is thinking about, not this case."

Leaving open the possibility of a quick settlement, Joseph Cammarata, Paula Jones' attorney, said in an interview yesterday "She wants her good name and reputation restored. If there's some way to accomplish that through some statement the president may read or issue that says he remembers her, that she was in that room, that she did nothing wrong and that she is a good person, well that may be sufficient.'' He also said -- revealing his true intent -- that he would launch a "blizzard" of subpoenas this week.

The Supreme Court may not have known that it was aiding and abetting Ms. Jones and her lawyers in what could be viewed as a ransom note delivered to the White House: "Either pay up and apologize now -- or face a years-long barrage of seedy questions from the press corps as well as thousands of hours devoted to legal maneuvering."

Perhaps I was wrong, earlier this week, in my opinion that President Clinton could ignore a week of bad stories focusing the scandal.

And perhaps the Supreme Court was wrong when it unanimously opined that the White House should not enjoy some limited protection from civil litigation.