Marshal Meese

Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III seems to go out of his way to demonstrate his unfitness for the high office he holds. Virtually everything he says in public about legal issues flies in the face of good sense, accepted jurisprudence and the American system of government.

Meese’s latest foray into absurdity appears in an interview in this week’s issue of U.S. News & World Report. He was asked to explain his opposition to the Supreme Court’s Miranda ruling, which requires that before the police question a suspect, they must advise him of his right to have a lawyer and to remain silent. Meese was asked, whether a suspect, who may be innocent, shouldn’t have that protection. He replied:

“Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

If it weren’t the attorney general speaking, this would be a joke. In fact, there is such a joke: Everyone who is arrested is guilty or he wouldn’t have been arrested. But coming from the attorney general, this view evokes more tears than laughter. Surely it is beyond the pale for the nation’s highest legal officer to say such things or even to think them. It is an outrage against the rule of law for anyone so insensitive to the basic principles of American justice to run the Justice Department.

Hasn’t he heard of “innocent until proven guilty?” Apparently not. His view is guilty until proven innocent, and he also wants to limit the ability of an accused person to mount a defense in the first place. Following Meese’s logic would mean doing away with trials. What’s the point in all that rigmarole if we know from the outset that suspects are guilty or they wouldn’t be suspects?

Meese has said many other nonsensical things recently. He opposes the exclusionary rule; he opposes applying the Bill of Rights against the states; he opposes a strict separation of church and state. All of these positions are bad enough. But the latest takes the prize. This man is a menace to the administration of justice and an embarrassment to the ideal of “Equal Justice Under Law.”