It used to be that we had no law. Going back to not too long ago (about 120 years ago), America (geographically) was a mostly lawless country. We dealt out justice as we saw fit, either through posse, ad hoc trials or frontier justice (you shot the man that done you wrong). In case you can’t tell, I’ve been watching a lot of “Deadwood” recently.

That era sure makes for some great television. But I would not want to live there.

Many conservatives in this country appear to want to return us to that era. The recent Terri Schiavo debacle and the upcoming debate on the continuance of the filibuster in Congress (debatable because Democrats want to keep it so they can oppose Bush’s judicial nominees) are just two examples of how the rule of law and role of judges are under attack.

Do conservatives really want to eliminate the judiciary? Probably not, but their most vocal advocates create that impression.

As my last column showed, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas came out hard for the Schiavo family. When, after she died, he declared that “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today,” I could nearly hear the spurs jangle as he mounted up his Regulators for some frontier justice.

In fact, that comment was so inflammatory, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey felt it opportune to note that DeLay may have violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Sec. 115 (a)(1)(B) which bans threatening a federal judge for what they have done while carrying out their duties.

But, nothing will happen to DeLay officially since the Congressional Ethics Committee won’t convene, namely because of Democrats upset at how lenient it has treated Tom DeLay before.

It goes beyond DeLay, however. No matter how out of touch with most American’s sensibilities he is (and increasingly his own constituency, who, recently polled, showed more of them would elect anybody but DeLay in a hypothetical showdown), DeLay is part of an increasingly loud chorus to dismantle one of the three branches of government.

Whether it’s the recently proposed bill to make all federal judges declare that all law derives from God (sponsored by four Republicans), or the actually passed bill that requires every federal judge who ever reduces a sentence to send their name in to Congress, or the recent comments by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas (a former Texas Supreme Court judge himself) who nearly excused the recent attacks on judges as actions they brought on themselves.

Since I personally know a direct family member of federal Judge Lefkow (whose husband and mother were recently slain by a mentally disturbed litigant) I was particularly frightened and disgusted by his behavior.

Riding this trend is one of the best selling books in America, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,” by Mark R. Levin.

It is pitched to an audience unfamiliar with the courts (or legal proceedings) — I was able to read it in an afternoon. Also, it is written by someone completely unfamiliar with the courts, legal theory, judicial processes or thought processes in general.

I looked into why it’s so popular. This book is flogged constantly by Rush, Hannity and their ilk, featured on their websites and in their book clubs. Why? Because it panders, pontificates and obfuscates to the point at which if I did not know anything about the judiciary, I would want them gone after reading Levin’s trifle as well.

The book lacks intellectual rigor, thoughtful analysis or an iota of reason.

If that’s why it’s so popular on the right, then we’re heading back to the Old West with quickness.

Rob Deters ([email protected]) is a third-year law student.