The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allowed the sentencing of Donald Trump to proceed in the New York State Court case against him. Today, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to, nothing essentially. No fine, no jail time, nothing. That is basically an admission that they accomplished what they set out to do, which was to label you, Trump as a convicted felon. After the sentencing today, Trump is officially a convicted felon. Once the appeal is completed he will no longer be. However, what Bragg and Merchan failed to do, which was without doubt their primary objective, was to inflict sufficient damage to Trump to cause him to lose the presidential election. I suppose the rationalization they appear to be OK with accepting at this point is 'we'll take what we can get'. Doesn't matter to them that on appeal, their case will crumble like a California mudslide. I find it a bit offensive that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Conen Barrett decided to allow the sentencing to proceed. In essence, the two justices were giving a tacit approval to the despicable and partisan New York courts.
I have long been a follower, admirer and advocate of the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest court in the country, the final say, a supreme, non-partisan judicial power. But unfortunately, not always so. Justices are conservative and liberal, and they invariably tend to vote that way. Not always, but usually. Presidents, when they are faced with appointing a replacement justice, are none too happy to add a vote that typically pleases the party. But it doesn't always happen that way. We have to assume that the justices vote the way that their seasoned, legal minds tell them to vote. But do they? If they dont vote along party lines, what is guiding them? Our next logic tree assumption is they are voting according to the law. These sage elders are the ultimate counselors of the constitution. The problem is, they're humans and like the rest of us, they have flaws. In addition to their extensive legal training and experience, they have the influence of life experience. And life experience often induces bias. They should be much better than the rest of us at keeping bias at abeyance, but they're still human. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, voted with the liberal justices, to allow the sentencing to continue. Are they ok, with what has taken place in Judge Merchan's court? Do they agree with the legality and decorum of the proceedings? We don't know, all we know is what they decided.
Let's go back to the original premise, what's right and what's wrong. Is it wrong for the Supreme Court to allow this travesty of justice to continue? Most of us are not lawyers and we don't need to be to understand what should and should not have happened throughout this circus act. It doesn't matter if you are a liberal or a conservative or a Supreme Court judge. A sense of decency and respect for the rule of law is all that is needed. And some common sense. With profound dismay, I believe neither if those virtues seemed to be present at all in the proceedings from the bringing of the charges to the verdict to the sentencing to the Supreme Court decision. History will remember this as a blatant abuse of the law. We can only hope that it will never happen again. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, granted the appeals process will no doubt correct this legal aberration. But you had the authority to stop it and send a clear message, this should not have happened. But you didn't. While you didn't violate the law, you clearly violated what is right and what is wrong. We expect much better from the 'final say'. Your job includes a little more than interpreting the constitution. It includes interpreting right and wrong. And you failed us...
No comments:
Post a Comment