Your independent hometown award-winning newspaper

Honest. These Supreme Court justices are not

From the editor —

A bedrock principle of our society is the rule of law. The cliches are true because they are fundamental to justice: A nation of laws, not of men. And, of course, no man is above the law.

But every red-blooded American knows that everyone gets the amount of justice that they can pay for. And when you are a billionaire ex-president who has appointed three Supreme Court justices, not only are the books cooked, but the defendant has aces in his back pocket as well as up his sleeve.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments over former President Donald Trump’s claim he is immune from criminal liability for actions while in office. He faces a “federal indictment on charges that as part of his effort to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, he committed fraud against the United States, attempted to obstruct an official government proceeding and illegally pressured public officials to help him block certification of the election results,” as the Voice of America website states.

Think about the question these justices took up:

It is the same one David Frost asked Richard Nixon in 1977: “the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.”

Nixon’s response: “Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.”

In 1974, the Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s assertion of executive privilege. The Court acted within 16 days that July. Why? They knew the case was not about Nixon but about the American people and democracy. The Court understood that justice delayed is justice denied. Who gets denied? Who is the loser? Everyone in the country.

But today this group of justices wants to hypothesize and then create precedent that says if the president does it it is not against the law. Why? Because he is doing it for some greater good?

These are the justices who for decades have embraced the legal theory of “original intent,” that judges interpret the Constitution with the understanding of its framers. The hypocrites. It is enought to read the president’s oath of office:

“I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article 2, Section 3 reads “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed … .”

Why are these judges worrying about theoretical actions of a future president? Why are they not looking at the case the Justice Department brought against Trump for his inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection? There is a simple term for that: sedition. The simple definition of that word: treason.

Presidents are not kings. Nor are they wizards or wise men. None is so capable to know he has to break the law to protect the country.

But these justices are not interested in the facts of Trump’s actual deed. Instead, they employed a rope-a-dope delay strategy that would do the boxer Mohammed Ali proud. Cases stuck in process and procedures might as well join these justices in Trump’s back pocket.

Those willing to see will identify this hypocrisy of 30-plus years of proud rigid ideology insisting on rulings based only on the words in the Constitution and their original meaning. But that has always been rhetoric, a cover.

Donald Trump has long been a fake and a fraud. Many refuse to learn that fact. Many are unable to name another truth. These Supreme Court justices are equally unjust and cons. They are knowingly acting to put not only their thumbs, but their hearts, souls and minds on the scale of justice, tilting it – and us – toward the autocratic world they are building.

A millennia ago, high priests would philosophize, wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Today it is clear that six Supreme Court so-called justices can call any dance tune they desire with impunity.

That is, until the American people have the courage and foresight to fight to expand the size of that Court.


Reader Comments(0)