The international section of this morning's New York Times carries a dispatch from Moscow reporting that Russian parliamentary leaders are urging the president of Belarus to make sure that the elections scheduled for the fall in Belarus are free and fair. The story goes on for a while in this vein, quoting from a Russian letter appealing to the president of Belarus to grant all parties equal access to the state-run press. Nowhere in the story is there even a hint of irony about the fact that Russia is lecturing anyone about how to run a free election. This is Russia, remember, where President Yeltsin's decision to step down before his term ended had the effect of handpicking Vladimir Putin as his successor, and where President Putin's henchmen have launched a fierce crackdown on what semblance of a free press there is. Sure, Belarus may be worse than Russia when it comes to democracy and press freedom, but still, Russia is in no position to lecture anyone on these issues. That's a point that the Times story doesn't make.
More on Gun Control: A Times editorial this morning on New York State's decision to sue gun manufacturers for creating a public nuisance says the suit doesn't go far enough. The Times wants the state to seek recovery of financial damages from the gun companies, a step the Times says would be "a good way of putting extra pressure on other gun makers to negotiate a deal" similar to a settlement reached between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton administration. But even left-liberals like Robert Reich, President Clinton's first labor secretary, have been voicing doubts recently about whether government civil suits against companies making legal products are a wise tactic for making policy. In its lead editorial on gasoline prices and emissions, the Times says that balancing the price and environmental effects of gas regulations "is a matter for Congress to decide and should not be driven by short-term supply imbalances." Why then, isn't gun control a matter for Congress, or the state legislature, to decide, and not for the courts? Probably because the Times knows that if it had to rely on the Congress or state legislature rather than the courts, it would have little chance to achieve the result it wants: crippling the gun industry the same way it did the tobacco industry. If Congress wants to debate banning handguns or regulating their sale, fine. It may confront Second Amendment issues. But relying on the courts to act in cases where there is no will in the legislatures sets up a dangerous pattern. Remember, we're not talking about desegregation here or some other case where the courts need to act to protect a constitutionally protected minority from having its rights trampled by the majority. We're talking about an attempt to use the courts to regulate an industry that makes legal products.