Not even a pretense of impartiality

© 2016 Jim Spence  A judge is supposed to conduct trials and hearings impartially and rule based on the law. This is the essential element of the judicial branch of government. Judges serve as vital arbiters when the other two branches of our government, the executive and legislative, have disputes. This critical distinction, the distinction of impartiality is simply melting away, even at the highest level.

Increasingly, over the past seven and a half years Mr. Obama has figured that if he can’t get a law passed, he will simply issue an “executive order.” Of course in third world countries dictators do this sort of thing every day. However, in America (until recently) all intellectually honest people would reject these types of executive orders as nothing more than lawless fascism.

There is a terribly excruciating thing that happens once the educated population starts to get conditioned to dictatorial processes, processes that are allowed to super cede the rule of law. Powerful people who should know better, not only forget about the U.S. Constitution, they even forget about basic manners and protecting the integrity of the institutions they serve.

Consider Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s outrageously partisan statements regarding the upcoming presidential election. It is actually quite astonishing that this woman would choose to severely damage her reputation, and the reputation of the court, by speaking in advance about a Trump presidency. Reprehensibly, Ginsburg was quoted as saying, “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.” She has also said that Mr. Trump is “a faker.” And Ginsburg did not stop there. She also lectured the GOP Senate for not confirming Obama Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. “That’s their job,” she is quoted as saying. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Oh really? What does advice and consent mean?

We also have misgivings about a possible Trump presidency as well as a Clinton presidency. However, unlike Ms. Ginsburg, we are not charged with impartially presiding and ruling on numerous proceedings where Trump or Clinton could well be either the plaintiff or the defendant.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s behavior provides the most compelling evidence yet that our constitutional form of government, a form that has propelled America to the greatest freedoms and living standards the world has ever known, has inoperable cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is literally a human tumor that has metastasized, and is now growing on the body of our nation. Commenting on the possible head of the branch of government she is sworn to judge impartially, simply disqualifies her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Sadly, the breach of this sacred trust has been greeted with a yawn from the fascists who support lawlessness in America.
Share/Bookmark

1 comments:

Mary Spence said...

Reprehensible!

Post a Comment