THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 16, 1997 TAG: 9701160013
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 51 lines
Only Paula Jones and President Bill Clinton know what happened in that Little Rock hotel room in 1991. Jones claims then-Governor Clinton engaged in the crudest possible sexual advance, made worse by the lopsided power equation. He held the state's top job; she held one of its least-exalted posts.
But the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday was not what happened in Little Rock but what can happen to presidents accused of civil offenses. Jones is suing Clinton for sexual harassment. Clinton denies the claim but agrees Jones should have her day in court. Later.
It is Clinton's contention that he shouldn't have to deal with the case until he leaves office. Clearly the president can't be immune to prosecution for all crimes - a kind of super-diplomatic immunity. And some relatively minor suits - over real estate boundaries or dog bites, say - would offer no significant distraction and could go forward.
But to force presidents to answer any civil suit that's brought could make it impossible for the chief executive to govern. The Supreme Court will have to decide where the line should be drawn.
The president's lawyers argue that litigating such a case is time-consuming and that a judge should not have the power to set the president's schedule. Jones' lawyers argue that memories fade, witnesses die, documents go astray, justice delayed is justice denied.
Questioning by the justices suggested that they weren't buying absolutist claims by either side. That suggests they may split the difference and let Jones proceed with discovery and the taking of depositions but postpone the actual hearing until Clinton is out of office.
It is where rights conflict that the choices get hard. Paula Jones has a right to her day in court. But the country has a right to be governed without disruption. If Clinton behaved as alleged, he deserves to pay a price. But if Jones succeeds in hailing the president into court, it will set a potentially far-reaching precedent.
Is there any doubt that other litigants would appear? Bringing nuisance suits against presidents could become the latest form of partisan hardball. Or a way to seek fame and fortune.
For that reason, presidents probably ought to be spared most civil litigation until out of office. If the charges rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, then a constitutional remedy exists - impeachment. But for lesser offenses, postponement makes sense.
In a country that subscribes to the view that no man is above the law, this is not a comfortable conclusion. But this case is not about sparing Bill Clinton from the consequences of his acts, but about protecting the office he occupies from politically inspired legal harassment.