Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Raymond Shadis, an adviser to the New England Coalition.
Crazy talk? Harsh invective? There’s been plenty to go around lately and not just among politicians seeking nomination for president.
To take just one example: In Vermont, where I’ve worked with and for Brattleboro-based New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution for more than 20 years, there has been a surge in outspoken criticism toward citizen activists, of any stripe, but focused most recently on the growing numbers who have had it with Entergy Vermont Yankee.
They are letting the world know that they are mad as hell at Entergy and their government for failing to comfort that creepy feeling that comes from comparing photos of Entergy Vermont Yankee and Fukushima Daiichi Unit One.
Perhaps the stampede of criticism comes now because activists have recently announced their intention to demonstrate as the date for expiration of the nuclear reactor’s original operating license approaches and slides by under the watchful protection of the local federal court.
It’s not just nuclear power revivalists who are irked by what seems an in-your-face quality to the anticipated demonstrations. Some very smart and learned people have elbowed aside the mob in order to get in a few kicks at the little guy. I was surprised to read that Don Kreis of the Vermont Law School had digressed from his blog dissection of the pre-emption decision and remaining legal options in order to pick on the Safe and Green Energy Alliance (SAGE), which is a relatively new, regionally based, and truly grassroots organization focused on the closing and eventual cleanup of Entergy Vermont Yankee. Says Kreis, “SAGE Alliance has proclaimed itself the organizer of a campaign of unspecified “nonviolent direct action” aimed at making sure Vermont Yankee closes as decreed by the Legislature on March 21.”
“Whither the rule of law?” asks the good professor. He actually said, “Whither…”
“On its website,” the professor continues, “SAGE Alliance accuses Entergy of attempting to “undermine the will of the people,” “steal our vote away” and “subvert democracy” as the company “defies Vermont law.” Adopting these propositions requires one to conclude that we are all free to ignore judicial decisions with which we disagree. … Either all of us are bound by judicial decisions and, thus, by the rule of law or there is the possibility that none of us are.”
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, for most citizens all avenues of redress for the near term have been closed or exhausted. SAGE and its many allies cannot appeal the federal district court’s decision. They can in no way ensure that the state will present a better case on appeal than the state presented the initial case. They are not practiced in the law nor can they afford to hire attorneys for what promises to be a multi-million dollar appeal; not that they would be afforded standing in any case. New England Coalition and Conservation Law Foundation do not demonstrate, we litigate on behalf of our members and supporters including many members of SAGE. But the court denied us standing to intervene in the pre-emption case and there is no trace of an indication that the judge read one word of our amicus briefs. Further, even though Judge Murtha recklessly chills the adjudication of our interests before the Vermont Public Service Board process to the bone and marrow, it is highly unlikely that the appeals court will allow us to intervene either.
Second, Kreis and other critics should acknowledge that the statements and actions of the Legislature, the executive, and the courts; the news media, social media, town and school board meetings, sidewalk meetings, grocery checkout gossip, rallies, public lectures, campaign speeches, panel discussions, and yes, demonstrations and civil disobedience, are all valuable, indispensible and constitutionally protected tools in the American citizen’s workbox for defining and advancing the American agenda. Plentiful examples of dissent, demonstrations and civil disobedience preceded both the War for Independence and the Constitution. From Thoreau to Rosa Parks to Greenpeace, they are firmly woven into the fabric of American civil discourse.
Third, the rule of law does not mean that a judge’s order must be blindly obeyed, it means that the judge must follow the law in forming his decision and formulating his order. In our view Judge Murtha did not. Further, the rule of law implies that law will be enforced and, if it is broken, consequences will follow. The activists who have pledged civil disobedience are fully aware of this and in advance they take responsibility for their actions; thus acknowledging, not undermining, the rule of law.
Finally, I recently attended a reunion of a Plowshares group that 20 years ago illegally entered the Bath (Maine) Iron Works to pour their blood on a guided-missile frigate deck and symbolically hammer on a missile launch hatch. Eventually, all this woke the guards and the group, including Philip Berrigan, was arrested. At trial, the judge laid on a stiff sentence, but told Berrigan in open court, “You are the conscience of the nation.”
In similar fashion, when SAGE demonstrators and friends, and those engaged in civil disobedience, are arrested for publicly protesting the continued risk of a Fukushima on the Connecticut, pollution of the soil and water, and indenturing future generations to the guardianship of even more high level nuclear waste, those watching events on TV and some Vermont judge may say, “You are the conscience of Vermont.”
