Unfortunately, our entire judicial system has been corrupted by partisanship and favoritism.
I feel like our constitutional republic has been turned into a giant Jenga game where each brick in the foundation of our Constitution is being removed, and eventually this Country is going to collapse on itself.
The entire concept of a living constitution is the root of the problem. That concept upends the idea of a contract meaning what it says. Imagine your mortgage company claiming your mortgage contract is a living document, and you will need to keep paying until death due to some bank's new interpretation of language.
I agree with you. If you'll allow me to sort of go off on a tangent from John's article and riff on your comment... The Constitution says what it says. There is a process for adding Amendments to meet future needs but, unfortunately, too many people - both citizens and our political/judicial elite - don't want to use that process. They want what they want, and they want it NOW!
So we have Justices of the Supreme Court using penumbrae and emanations - like ancient priests divining sheep guts - to read into the Constitution their own ideas of what they want it to say . Then, we have legislators like Rep. James Clyburn who once opined: "The Constitution means what we say it means."
Of what use is a Constitution when the Country's leadership who swear to uphold it, don't? Instead of conscientiously abiding by the meaning and intent of the Constitution, we get petty tyrants like Letitia James and Arthur Engoron using the color of authority to persecute their political opponents.
Whether or not you like the man, seeing the law turned into a crusher to punish and ruin political opponents is pretty terrifying. We always had the rule of law. Now it's gone.
This is really excellent! If you want to be able to quickly understand the grievously anti-constitutional judgment against Trump--regardless of your opinion of Trump, the man, or candidate--this is one of the best articles I have read.--We must remember, If there is no consistency in the law--capitalism cannot flourish. This judgment, if allowed to stand will destroy the basis for our nation's wealth creation.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your point about the precedent is correct. Trump says a lot of things that make me cringe, but when he said that "They're not after me, they're after you" he was correct.
And thanks for your kind words. They are motivating.
My apologies for asking for a law class in response, but could you write about the massive Rudy Guilliani judgment in the Georgia case? In 2020, I saw the Fulton County video of the women hiding the box of ballots in the morning and then shooing the observers out, retrieving the box from under the table, and then counting the ballots. I think Rudy failed to respond in a timely manner and so lost some defenses in that case--however, I thought it was the responsibility of judges to ensure that justice is served as much as possible (I know, how naive of me)--and unless the video is fraudulent, or Rudy himself threatened these women--how is this fine not excessive? Thank you in advance.
I thought about that at the time because my gut reaction was that this was a runaway jury verdict. I took a pass because to do such an article properly, I would have to have access to the complete trial record, including the transcript, exhibits and probably some of the court filings, such as jury instructions, pre-trial briefs, etc.
I did not have access to all that, hence my decision not to try to address this one.
In trying to increase dialogue of politics I posted this on Facebook, which initially they did not allow. I asked for any questioning of the facts or conclusions, but am afraid it is too straight forward to have any.
David, thanks for this heads-up. I have had articles in the past that FB has rejected. But I got a couple of new subscribers who apparently read this post on FB. If you are so inclined, would you try to see if FB will take my latest post?
Very well reasoned. However I must disagree with the conclusion, “The proliferation of lawfare against Trump is intended to deny him the “benefit of the law” and to deprive millions of voters of their right to choose their president.” Donald Trump’s documented behavior has in many cases violated people’s legal rights, if only in the case of legal contracts and the case of the rape which a jury of his peers implicitly found him to have committed. The fact that many lawsuits have been filed aimed at holding him accountable is not a legitimate basis for drawing any inference that any particular lawsuit is not meritorious. Clearly, pressuring public officials to “find” nonexistent votes can be the basis for a legitimate criminal prosecution. Whether or not a jury will conclude that the man who sees himself as a greater president than Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, our entire judicial system has been corrupted by partisanship and favoritism.
I feel like our constitutional republic has been turned into a giant Jenga game where each brick in the foundation of our Constitution is being removed, and eventually this Country is going to collapse on itself.
The entire concept of a living constitution is the root of the problem. That concept upends the idea of a contract meaning what it says. Imagine your mortgage company claiming your mortgage contract is a living document, and you will need to keep paying until death due to some bank's new interpretation of language.
I agree with you. If you'll allow me to sort of go off on a tangent from John's article and riff on your comment... The Constitution says what it says. There is a process for adding Amendments to meet future needs but, unfortunately, too many people - both citizens and our political/judicial elite - don't want to use that process. They want what they want, and they want it NOW!
So we have Justices of the Supreme Court using penumbrae and emanations - like ancient priests divining sheep guts - to read into the Constitution their own ideas of what they want it to say . Then, we have legislators like Rep. James Clyburn who once opined: "The Constitution means what we say it means."
Of what use is a Constitution when the Country's leadership who swear to uphold it, don't? Instead of conscientiously abiding by the meaning and intent of the Constitution, we get petty tyrants like Letitia James and Arthur Engoron using the color of authority to persecute their political opponents.
An excellent, enlightening explanation for the layman to understand the amount of corruption being directed at a citizen for political purposes.
Whether or not you like the man, seeing the law turned into a crusher to punish and ruin political opponents is pretty terrifying. We always had the rule of law. Now it's gone.
I despise Trump. I also agree with every word of this.
This is really excellent! If you want to be able to quickly understand the grievously anti-constitutional judgment against Trump--regardless of your opinion of Trump, the man, or candidate--this is one of the best articles I have read.--We must remember, If there is no consistency in the law--capitalism cannot flourish. This judgment, if allowed to stand will destroy the basis for our nation's wealth creation.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your point about the precedent is correct. Trump says a lot of things that make me cringe, but when he said that "They're not after me, they're after you" he was correct.
And thanks for your kind words. They are motivating.
My apologies for asking for a law class in response, but could you write about the massive Rudy Guilliani judgment in the Georgia case? In 2020, I saw the Fulton County video of the women hiding the box of ballots in the morning and then shooing the observers out, retrieving the box from under the table, and then counting the ballots. I think Rudy failed to respond in a timely manner and so lost some defenses in that case--however, I thought it was the responsibility of judges to ensure that justice is served as much as possible (I know, how naive of me)--and unless the video is fraudulent, or Rudy himself threatened these women--how is this fine not excessive? Thank you in advance.
I thought about that at the time because my gut reaction was that this was a runaway jury verdict. I took a pass because to do such an article properly, I would have to have access to the complete trial record, including the transcript, exhibits and probably some of the court filings, such as jury instructions, pre-trial briefs, etc.
I did not have access to all that, hence my decision not to try to address this one.
I think this case is a key to undoing the madness. Is there any way to get to the truth and expose it for the general public to see it?
Democrats have embraced evil.
In trying to increase dialogue of politics I posted this on Facebook, which initially they did not allow. I asked for any questioning of the facts or conclusions, but am afraid it is too straight forward to have any.
David, thanks for this heads-up. I have had articles in the past that FB has rejected. But I got a couple of new subscribers who apparently read this post on FB. If you are so inclined, would you try to see if FB will take my latest post?
Thanks again for commenting.
Very well reasoned. However I must disagree with the conclusion, “The proliferation of lawfare against Trump is intended to deny him the “benefit of the law” and to deprive millions of voters of their right to choose their president.” Donald Trump’s documented behavior has in many cases violated people’s legal rights, if only in the case of legal contracts and the case of the rape which a jury of his peers implicitly found him to have committed. The fact that many lawsuits have been filed aimed at holding him accountable is not a legitimate basis for drawing any inference that any particular lawsuit is not meritorious. Clearly, pressuring public officials to “find” nonexistent votes can be the basis for a legitimate criminal prosecution. Whether or not a jury will conclude that the man who sees himself as a greater president than Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln remains to be seen.