Confidentiality Doesn't Die
and Other Major Supreme Court Decisions
Thursday, June 25, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- In a single day, the Supreme Court managed to hand down decisions that have a far greater effect on Americans than everything Congress has "accomplished" since last October.
In what was hailed by CNN legal analyst Greta van Sustern as "a great victory for any American that must see a lawyer" the Supreme Court determined that attorney-client privilege remains intact even after the death of the client.
It was also another high-profile defeat for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who had been seeking to force James Campbell, a former attorney for the late Vincent Foster, to turn over notes pertaining to the so-called "Travelgate" affair. Starr's most sweeping attempts to undermine individual privacy rights and Presidential powers have hit a serious wall of late -- in the form of America's highest court.
"Travelgate" still looks to be yet another trumped-up scandal, involving the dismissal of political appointees early in the Clinton Administration, including travel office boss "Billy" Dale, who became a sort of poster boy for Clintonian "abuses" on right-wing chat radio -- despite clear evidence of monetary misdeeds on the part of Mr. Dale, a fact glossed over when not entirely ignored by the mainstream press.
Campbell cited a number of factors which he feels moved the court to rule in his favor: the case, with its underlying issues and the handful of exceptions which do exist to pierce the veil of attorney-client privilege, was important by its nature; the strong amicus support he had been able to enlist from groups as diverse as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Hospice Organization; and the technical problems he cited during the lower court appeal.
Nonetheless, despite the media making such a buzz about how this decision is "a loss for Ken Starr," the settling of this particular issue has far wider ramifications for many citizens. One of the overriding factors which guided the majority ruling against Starr is the fact that dissolution of attorney confidentiality after death would have the effect of forcing defendants to be less than candid with their attorneys, a factor which could wraek havoc with the fundamental integrity of our judicial system.
The other headline-grabbing decision by the Court was the Justices' ruling that the line-item veto is unconstitutional.
President Clinton almost immediately issued a statement expressing disappointment about the overturning of what he described as "a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget."
Ironically, this defeat may bring the President into a rare alliance with his political arch-foe, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on one issue on which they quite strongly agree. And I predict it will -- mostly because Newt Gingrich, whose approval rating is about half of Clinton's disapproval rating -- needs a popular "hot-button" issue to improve not only his popularity but the rapidly eroding chance that the GOP will hold onto the House come election time in November.
And there are two possible avenues of attack. Clinton and Congress could tweak the wording of the present statute to please the very technical objections of the court majority. I think it's more likely that the other, higher-profile approach -- an initiative for an amendment to the Constitution -- will be chosen. The line-item veto is a popular concept to most Americans, and it's a potential win-win situation for Clinton and Gingrich to get behind line-item in a big way.
In the closest of the major decisions, by 5-4 the court ruled that AIDS patients are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and cannot be discriminated against even if they are HIV-positive but asymptomatic. Both the majority and minority briefs were very technical in nature, restricting the application of the ruling somewhat; nonetheless, a number of AIDS advocacy groups hailed the ruling as a victory.
And indeed it is with respect to patients with AIDS seeking medical treatment. There remain unresolved questions about certain workplace issues and how the court might rule on these with respect to the Disabilities Act, but for today, AIDS pateints -- as well as people with other communicable diseases -- can savor a victory with respect to their access to health care.
I am less sanguine about the Justices' decision that the National Endowment for the Arts is not required to pay grants for artworks which might offend certain community standards. The decision, which went against feminist performance artist Karen Finley, was decided on technical grounds as well as a narrow interpretation of the first amendment.
The decision also serves to further fuel the fires set by right-wingers out to kill the NEA -- a largely beneficial program that provides music, dance and art programs for children and the elderly, makes fine art available to communities that otherwise have little or no access, has underwritten music, dance and theatre works hailed as masterpieces, and generated over a billion dollars in revenue for arts institutions, publishers and fine and performing artists -- not to mention created thousands of private-sector jobs across the country.
The problem with most "cultural conservatives" is that their idea of high art is Norman Rockwell, and they have little or no pride -- let alone knowledge of or respect for -- American folk art, dance and music as well as serious literature, music, drama and art. I feel a bit sorry for them for their closed-minded attitude -- and outrage at a few of them who almost wear their disdain for art as a badge of honor.
Believe me, it isn't.
With irrefutable proof that listening to music and learning to create visual art very early in life boost brain power, these luddites aren't merely depriving Americans of art programs, they are undermining our nation's interests and power by driving yet another nail in the coffin of American intellectual strength.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
