Saturday, April 27, 2024

Keeping Trump Out of Trouble In Court

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has throughout its history been accused of political bias, not always without some degree of justification. The current court, by any reasonable standard of measurement, has become more highly politicized than ever before. The right wing extremists of America, in concert with the conservative extremists they elected, have managed to stack the high court with several of their own kind, the kind which gives preference to conservative renderings over equal justice under law. Just this past week while Donald Trump dozed off in a New York courtroom while his attorneys and prosecutors argued over whether the former president has committed financial and election fraud, his other attnorneys stood before SCOTUS, and argued that the president, any president, past, pesent, or future, but especially Trump, should be given absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any acts he or she might have commited during or after his or her presidency. Alarmingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the six heavily biased conservative sitting justices seemed inclined to favor the argument, while the three moderate to liberal justices clearly maintained that no president is above the law. How can we be sure that no future president, given such broad immunity, will not convert the oval Office into a den of iniquity, a headquarters for criminal activity, inquired justice Elana Kagan? The answer, clearly, is that we cannot. One can almost imagine a future president plotting vengeance against any and all of his or her political opponents,in Nixonian fashion, mapping out strategies including murder, extortion, or bribery, to ensure a desirable outcome for other presidential perfidy, and to lay the groundwork for future nefarious deeds. One of the conservative justices, it may have been Kavanaugh, himself an accused sex offender, suggested that withoud absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, a future prosecutor of the president might use "creative" reasoning to bring false, vendetta based accustaions against the chief executive in a court of law. The esteemed justice did not specify precisely how this might be accomplished, unsurprisingly. He apparently did not know. The answer, of course, is that under such circumstances, the magistrate sitting in judgment of the president would have the option of dismissing the charges summarily, or that the jury would have ample opportunity to essentially do the same, by finding the president or former president not guilty, hastily. There can be no dobut that the Supreme court is tryingg to find a way to provide cover for one of their own ideological compratriots, Donald J. Trump. It is a matter of record that all six of the sitting justices are indeed MAGA trump supporters, although that reality is seldom mentioned. It should have taken this court no longer than fifteen minutes to determine and delare that no president is above the law, and that immunity for presidents alleged to have committed crimes does not and cannot exist. A "liberal" justice pointed out that the framers of the constitution could easily have placed just such an imunity clause in the constitution, but did not. Once again we see that the so called "originalists", the constututinal "literalists", to whom the constutution is a supposedly sacred document on the same leel as theCchristian bibl,e suddenly, "inexplicably" lose their fervor for reading the document as it was written and was in theory intended to be read, when confronted with the potential negation of their own agendas. Aside from the obvious fact that the United States badly needs a new and improved, or at least updated version of the document appropriate for our modern times, it becomes increasingly obvious that the party of law and order, the Republican party, is considerably more concerned with imposing its agenda on the American people by subverting the constitution, structuring their made to order law to meet its own ends, than with upholding the integrity of the law by obeying the founding document it falsely claims to hold so dear.

No comments:

Post a Comment