Conspiracy theories about the birthplace and citizenship of President Obama are old hat. Sure, there are plenty of hardcore birthers who weren’t convinced when he released his original “long form” birth certificate, which is exactly what they’d been demanding for the last few years (I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, that conspiracy theorists were unmoved by logic and evidence!) but the cool kids have moved on. When it comes to conspiracy theories clogging up the court system, retro is back in a big way. That’s right, people are once again filing lawsuits based on the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Now, it may be a bit premature to call these conspiracy theories “retro,” since the events in question happened just under 10 years ago; but considering that VH1 did a nostalgic retrospective on the 1990s just a few years after that decade ended, I’m going to assume that our definition of “retro” has changed.
Anyway, a former Pentagon employee filed a lawsuit against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other former Bush administration officials, alleging that they played a role in the attack in which she and her daughter were injured. The plaintiff, April Gallop, worked at the Pentagon, and was there during the attack. She and her infant son, who had come to work with her that day, were both injured in the attack, according to the complaint.
Obviously, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were one of the greatest tragedies this country has ever endured. I certainly remember how I felt, watching those images on TV. I can’t imagine how much worse it must have been for the people, including the plaintiff in this case, who were more directly affected.
I can understand why someone who was directly affected by those horrible acts would want to find somebody, anybody, to personally blame, rather than some faceless, far-away terrorist organization. And considering that conspiracy theories began proliferating just days after the attacks, it’s not surprising that some people seeking to hold someone accountable would latch onto those theories.
This was, without question, the right decision.
Again, I understand that when someone suffers a tragedy, they feel the need to hold someone responsible. And if there’s a ready-made conspiracy theory that lets you blame someone over whom the U.S. courts have jurisdiction, so much the better.
However, the courts are not an open venue for catharsis. That’s not to say that the courts shouldn’t be open, and that litigation cannot be cathartic – they should, and it can be. What I mean is that the primary purpose of the courts is not to make litigants feel better.
Obviously, the purpose of litigation is to provide the litigants with just compensation for actual injuries they have sustained. Now, this can sometimes overlap with the emotional goals of the litigants, but when that happens, it’s just gravy.
It may seem harsh when a court dismisses a case like this without allowing a trial on the facts alleged in the complaint; but when a complaint is based on unsupported conjecture and speculation, dismissing the case is warranted. After all, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and going through the motions of a trial when there are no genuine issues of fact would be a huge waste of the court’s, and everybody else’s, time and resources.
And, unfortunately, politics have to be considered, even though I believe that the judicial system should be divorced from the political branches of government as much as possible. There seems to be a subtle, but pervasive, hostility to the federal judiciary in Congress. I’m not sure why. Maybe they don’t like the fact that there’s a branch of government that can overturn their laws as unconstitutional, leaving them with little practical recourse. Whatever the reason, Congress has shown its disdain for the federal courts the best way it knows how: keeping them chronically under-funded.
As a result, courts must do everything they can to save resources. This includes dismissing matters that clearly have no merit, without letting them go to trial. Of course, they should do this anyway, in cases where the plaintiff has no cause of action, even if all the facts alleged in their complaint are true. But, the present circumstances add another layer of practical urgency to that basic principle.