What a nuisance for Bill Clinton. Not only did he have to go to the trouble of campaigning for reelection this past year and fighting those nasty Whitewater probes, but now he may have to go to court. Last Monday morning he sent his lawyer, Robert Bennett, best known for representing bigoted Cincinnati Reds Owner Marge Schott, to ask the Supreme Court to give him a special exemption from the very law he swore to uphold when he took office in 1992.
Bennett requested that the Supreme Court put the Paula Jones sexual-harassment lawsuit against the President on hold until Clinton is out of office. No court in the United States has ever granted so broad an immunity, but that fact is not stopping Clinton and his lawyers from constructing what is at best a flimsy defense that hopes to place him above the law.
Clinton's lawyers first tried to fall back on the 1982 ruling that gave Nixon immunity from being sued for alleged crimes committed while he was in office. This ruling does not apply to the charge against Clinton because it applies only to official conduct while in office. The justices believed that without such immunity Presidents would be discouraged from making hard decisions in office. The hard decision at issue here for Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, was whether or not to drop his pants in a Little Rock hotel room, which, according to Paula Jones, he most certainly did.
Another approach taken by the Clinton team is that the case would be a great time burden for the President, but it goes without saying that the Court is quite capable of accommodating his extensive schedule of golf. A third defense was that the trial would intrude into the operation of the White House, thus violating the principle of the separation of powers. Nixon tried the same defense in 1974 and it was rejected.
What amazes me about this trial is not the fact that Clinton, by not simply facing the charges against him, has shown a total lack of integrity or character in keeping with his office. That is old hat for this administration. What is truly unbelievable is that the women's organizations and feminist protesters that swarmed over Capitol Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings are noticeably absent from the Paula Jones trial.
Gilbert Davis, Jones' lawyer, commented, "Those people who have an interest in women's rights and women's issues ought to stand up for her right to be in court." We are talking about a woman with six corroborating witnesses who had an officer of law give sworn testimony that he was personally responsible for bringing prostitutes to the office of Governor Clinton. Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment against then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas inspired feminists across the nation to take her side, had only her word to substantiate her suspicious story.
At this point in the case, the principle is not who is right or who is wrong. The principle under attack is carved above the front entrance to the Supreme Court -- "Equal Justice Under Law." The National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority decided that "equal" applied to Clarence Thomas, who, as a Republican eager to subvert the liberal rulings of the Supreme Court, must be guilty of something -- why not sexual harassment? But Bill Clinton, an ardent supporter of the feminist agenda, could not possibly be guilty of sexual harassment (or embezzlement or campaign finance fraud...). However, when the Supreme Court makes it decision, it should take the advice of the ACLU, the editorial board of the New York Times and countless American citizens who believe that no man, not even the President, is above the law.
