Senate Majority Dean Johnson apologized Monday on the Senate floor for "inaccurate statements" in January about how the state Supreme Court would rule on any challenge to the current law prohibiting same-sex marriages.
Johnson's apology to the Senate and his constituents settles the ethics charges filed against him by several Republican senators.
Johnson's contrition was appropriate. He apologized to the Senate, his constituents and to the New London-Spicer Ministerial.
Now the time has come to move on.
This episode certainly was humbling to Johnson as well it should be. As Johnson stated during his Senate apology, he has learned from his experience.
ADVERTISEMENT
The case was also a reminder to all of his colleagues of the importance of direct and honest communication at all times.
Many of Johnson's critics, both locally and around the state, who are claiming he lied are giving little consideration to the possibility that some type of discussion with a justice actually did occur. Certainly, politics has played a role in some of the criticism of Johnson. That does not excuse Johnson's "embellishment."
But the fact that discussion of the gay marriage issue with a justice occurred is a possibility that should be considered as it could have happened. After all, judges are only human.
One needs to look no further than the recent example of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who stated during a March 8 speech in Switzerland that it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting against the United States should have the right to a "jury trial." Coincidentally, Scalia's comments were taped and recently released.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the administration's decision to try alleged war criminals before military tribunals. Scalia's recusal is now being sought in the Guantanamo case.
This illustrates the danger and concern of politicizing judicial elections, which has been a goal of some in the Republican Party in this state. They want to question judges specifically as to how the candidate might vote on various issues, such as abortion, gay marriage and other divisive issues.
Asking judges to predetermine their opinion on any case is a bad practice. That is something Minnesotans and all of their leaders should remember and avoid.
