In the United States, it sometimes feels like we are realizing the curse of living in interesting
times. Recently, some of the challenges facing the American experiment and an ever global and
digital world have caused a retreat into ideological camps. Among legal colleagues, our ability to
explore, uphold, and represent the rule of law is being censored from without and within as
inherently partisan. I think this is inconsistent with our training as lawyers and our social
development as neighbors and citizens. These conversations have to happen.
I’ve been trying to think about some of the foundational questions we inherited and will pass on
in this attempt to maintain and improve our “more perfect union”:
Who should have what rights? Should the opinions and priorities of the wealthy be weighted?
Should the central seat of power carry more authority or the decentralized states? What should be
the relationship between our remarkably conceived several branches of government? What
should be the relationship between individual identity and nation?
In theory, the answers to these and other questions help clarify and refine the systems and
structures that make up the rule of law.
The rule of law is the promise to be able to honestly identify and ask the questions, without the
questions themselves being some partisan dog whistle. Our systems and structures were designed
on purpose. In part, I believe this was to provide a forum where these conversations can and
should take place. If these conversations cannot take place then we should suspend any hope to
take meaningful action, to withstand present and new challenges, and to create practical solutions
that benefit everyday people.
Law school and the Bar exam were not so long ago for me that I cannot remember how issues
need to be identified, analyzed, supported with precedent and perspectives. I wonder how many
of us in the legal profession can say that we still apply that training in engaging with these
interesting times in which we find and may continue to find ourselves.
I understand not everyone with an opinion is a lawyer and I’m certain my colleague readers will
echo my sentiment when I say: good. I also think we as lawyers have a privilege to engage with
these ideas and each other; to have an idea but not be had by one; to remember the call of the
question.
The above was written in conjunction with the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association for the May/June 2025 edition of their Bar Journal emphasizing the importance of the Rule of Law