On the legal system and its political inequities
I went to law school a long long time ago. I wasn’t quite sure why I went, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. I had taken the LSAT, which is the equivalent of College Boards for law school, and got a score so high I could basically write my own ticket to any law school I preferred. I had vague notions of becoming a defense attorney. But while in law school I realized I didn’t have the temperament for it, and much – not all, but much – of law bored me almost to tears.
But although I never practiced law, I never regretted going to law school. The entire experience was valuable because law is so much a part of one’s later life that it’s good to know more than most people do about the way it functions and the thinking behind it. My favorite course was jurisprudence, which is the philosophy of law. Even that had a surprising and helpful amount of application to everyday life, and it helped me give free – you get what you pay for – legal advice to my friends.
But one thing I never anticipated was that I would become a blogger (that designation didn’t even exist back then) and that law would become so absolutely central to our politics. For a long time now I’ve been struck by how often I must learn more about law in order to write about law for this blog, because law has occupied an even more central place in politics in recent years. It’s not just the usual SCOTUS cases, either, which were always so important. It’s law as a tool of politics by the left against political opponents on the right.
It’s long been apparent that, although our legal system aspires to being even-handed and objective no matter who the defendant might be, that there are many exceptions. However, over the years since I was in law school, legal education has changed markedly, and that change is part of the Gramscian march through the institutions. My professors didn’t speak about politics and so I never knew their affiliations, but I would wager that many of them were on the right. Nowadays such a political affiliation in a law professor is far more rare, and what’s more, the ones on the left are on the far left. An overt “ends justify the means” philosophy has taken over, and the very basic idea that everyone deserves to have competent defense – even, for example, Donald Trump – has nearly disappeared.
That’s how our present state of lawfare – an apt moniker – has come to be. Two dubious civil cases against Trump in NYC with ridiculously high awards, and four criminal cases originally timed to be decided prior to the 2024 election and brought by Democrats. The goals are transparent; they’re not hiding what they’re doing, although the MSM keeps trying to tell us otherwise.
But three of the cases have hit legal snags. The strangest and weakest of them all, the so-called “hush money” case, is probably the only one that will have been decided prior to the election. This wasn’t the original plan, but I believe it was certainly part of the reason so many cases were launched at once, as insurance against some of them not going through in time. But the fact that the extremely weak case brought by Bragg may be the only one that goes through prior to November of 2024 leaves the Democrats open to widespread (and correct) perceptions of bias and persecution of a political rival.
The fact that the Hunter Biden case is following on the heels of the Trump case also threatens to point out our two-tiered justice system, because Hunter is being tried in a state that’s not only deep blue but that has been dominated by the political power of his family for many decades. If he gets off entirely, or gets off with a wrist slap, it will highlight the injustice of the system. His trial has also highlighted something else, although I’m not sure how many people who aren’t already on the right will take notice: the obvious and undoubted authenticity of his laptop, which is being used as evidence. The coverup just prior to the 2020 election was blatant and just another example of the election interference that continues today.
The various cases against Trump that have been halted are described by Ace in this post, including distorted and biased coverage by the MSM. The same outlets praising someone like Bragg and the extremely rogue legal process against Trump there excoriate Judge Cannon in Florida and use lies of omission to make her behavior in slowing down the classified documents case seem highly unusual when it is not. And at Legal Insurrection you can read this post about why the Georgia Court of Appeals has paused the Trump case there.
It all must make the left’s blood boil, at least temporarily. But they can console themselves with the knowledge that at least they’ve imprisoned several peaceful anti-abortion grandparents who blocked abortion clinic entrances, including a woman in poor health. Blogger Ward Clark asks:
Where are the two-year prison sentences for the people who are blocking streets, taking over college campuses, and invading public buildings in the latest leftist outrage du jour over the Israel-Hamas war? Where is the sentence for Raz Simone, who led the takeover of an entire section of the city of Seattle in 2020, setting himself up as a de facto warlord and ruler?
The key is that the feds are not interested in Draconian penalties for them, and because most of those activities occurred in blue cities and/or blue states, there is no will to do very much against them at the state level, either. Arrests without prosecution, or suspended sentences, have been the rule and a great contrast to the ways that people on the right are treated. Duly noted.
Didn’t the judge in this case squelch the plea deal because it also gave Hunter immunity from any future investigations?
And all of this playing out in real time while the SC struggles to come up with the appropriate immunity for Presidents– which may not even be possible. It moves most of the arguments for immunity from the realm of the hypothetical.
The approach to weaponizing the law springs from a fundamental asymmetry between political conservatives and lefties:
Conservatives want to be left alone – they want to limit the reach and power of government and the law.
Lefties are innately political critters.
This is what leads to the impression that conservatives are always playing catchup – people voted for Reagan and thought that was it, they didn’t have to pay attention to politics after that.,,, but the political critters kept working and expanding the system while conservatives went back to their (non-political) lives.
It is against the inherent grain of many conservatives to organize politically, or play the games of campaign finance, patronage, cronyism and all the other ways to get and use political power and leverage.
This is how our judicial and educational systems were pulled Left.
It works.
But it does not come naturally to conservatives – and is as natural as breathing to most Lefties.
How many of your conservative friends and neighbors did the work necessary to get themselves onto a local school board?
The Founders envisioned citizen-legislators… well that takes some grass-roots political organization and savvy. And even more horse-trading savvy once you get to the Capitol.
THANKS AGAIN for sharing that YouTube Yale Con Law’s explicandum of the lastest case’s quirks and follies and hurdles.
Very instructive.
If you’re an actual criminal or terrorist you have little to fear close quote
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13502451/gavin-newsom-plan-defund-california-police-climate-budget.html
https://www.theblaze.com/news/fbi-memo-covenant-shooter-manifesto?
If you are a favored group they will bend over backwards not to stigmatize you
Also those two molotov throwing asian
lawyers
Excellent post, BTW.
Many years ago, in many Police Academies, cadets were taught to never add a bunch of charges to an offender, because Judges might think you were being excessive in your enforcement. Example, instead of writing tickets for running 4 stop signs, driving the wrong way on a one-way street, doing 78mph in 10mph school zone, doing 100mph in a 35mph zone, fleeing a Police Officer, and drunk driving – just write two tickets, 1 for Careless Driving and the other for DUI. Detective divisions would have different suggestions, but in many cases the same thinking could be applied to other crimes also.
Excessive Enforcement must not be taught nowadays…
This bizarro universe brought to you by soros and other assorted slithy toves
The firemen to cite bradbury
They are busy glorying on their hate. It’s powerful, glory and righteous hate
I’ve read how, when asked, some would want to talk to historical figures like Churchill
What is the point?
Shouldn’t you rather hear from someone at Dunkirk?
Yes they lost
The judge in the Fani case is unethical trash. How can he ethically hear ANY case involving the Fulton county prosecutor’s office? Ever! Thanks to Trump we can now see the grand scope of the rot in our legal system.
I suspect that Hunter will at most get a slap on the wrist, and that this will affect the November election negatively for Biden. The discrepancy between his case and Trump’s will be so glaring that I predict it will move a small, but real, percentage of independents and undecideds to Trump.
Hopefully enough to get us beyond the margin of fraud.
Neo’s post speaks to the unwelcome fact that we have lost the USA and its Constitution.
The Left delights in lawfare. It is evil people who subsidize this.
When I say we have lost the USA, I mean FOREVER. It is the inherent nature of Leftism to be dictatorial, and of the Right to attempt to conserve (conservative; get it?), mostly without success, and stem the Leftist tsunami that washes away all that America has stood for. It began over 100 years ago, with socialist Woodrow Wilson.
Hilarious to see CNN try to paint amicus curiae briefs as some kind of novel, shady, conservative legal tactic. Just a few months ago they were reporting on them straight, even though it was in support of Trump.
Remember the “amicus curiae” brief presented by one of the pals of the infamous and truly corrupt Judge Sullivan in the never-ending Michael Flynn debacle? “Expert” opinion to keep Flynn “legally” hog-tied by that sordid judge and Obama minion….
All perfectly above-board, of course…
Barry Meislin:
Yes, that really was irregular and unusual on the part of the judge. What an awful miscarriage of justice that trial was.
Yes judge gleason protector of hsbc and colleague of weissman on the gotti taskforce guess who his firm represents hsbc and a chinese bank
Sullivan had sat through the stevens trial than after the bogus conviction he requested a review from an outside investigator and then lightly sanctioned some of the prosecutors one of them bottini was sufficiently shamed he committed suicide
The sanctions were subsequently reversed in memory serves
I realize you haven’t been in law-school for a while, but can you recommend any classic yet pertinent books on jurisprudence?
Thanks!
Meanwhile, Judge Cannon and the truth march on:
Judge Cannon Expands Hearing on Validity of Trump Special Counsel
The Appointments Clause does not permit the attorney general to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States.
Senate hearings would’ve been legally appropriate but time-consuming. Garland was under pressure from Team Joe to hurry. Hence…
Time does not favor Joe, something he might be dimly aware of.
“Time for a bathroom break.”
“No, no, no Joe! Not here, not now.”
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1798685173216927843
The sad part is that the Democrats have done the impossible: they have made Republicans join them in questioning whether the legal system is fair and just. Conservatives have know that any system created by man is imperfect, but now many are starting to realize that it is corrupted, perhaps beyond repair. This fits well with their plan for the destruction of the American system of government.
Hunter:
3 years, suspended.
(potential) 30 days county.
3 years probation.
Must attend zoom NA meetings
Yikes.
Every once in a while, Neo gets on the word train, and the thing just runs.
If it’s even possible to have fun reading about politics, this would be an example for the conservatives.
Thanks.
As we see with Trump, and General Flynn, among many others, the process is the punishment. Down to impoverishing one’s family.
One of the issues here is that many of the headline cases eventually, possibly after appeals, end in acquittal, case dropped, but no punishment. Or much milder than was initially threatened.
So even if you know you’re innocent, you can be harshly punished.
How many of, say, J6 defendants took a plea to avoid being bankrupted or thrown in front of a DC jury?
JohnnyB:
Am no historian, but I doubt any Human Legal system has ever been “fair and just.” Human Law has always been the Pharaoh’s or Emperor’s or ‘God’s’ or King’s or etc. Law. However, let’s focus on America since the Pilgrims.
How Fair, Just, and Uncorrupted was it to burn Witches at the Stake? How many Irish immigrants, Chinese immigrants, etc. suffered under the Law at that time? When did black Americans ever get “fair and just” Laws & Law Enforcement—especially before 1964?
The History of the American Legal System is littered with unfair, unjust, and corrupt Laws and Law Enforcement, IMHO. Republicans share equal responsibility – *AND* probably more so in such unfair Laws, and unjust and corrupt Laws, and Law Enforcement. (is it against the Law to use so many “and”’s in a sentence?)
It’s easy and oh so virtuous to look backwards in time and judge standards by current measurements of just and fair. At the time trial by combat was considered eminently fair. And people were definitely not considered equal under the law in any way. Not until relatively recently. So this “thing” of judging the past by the present really doesn’t work for me.
Talk about not relevant to the discussion…..
Those who remember the past will still have to repeat it, because there’s always some bonehead out there who doesn’t. – Unknown
What’s considered fair in the past may not be considered fair in the present. Neither of the posts have not a damn thing to do with law. Churchills especially. Especially the last boneheaded quote. They have everything to do with events and our lack of not learning from them e.g. Hitlers rise to power and the lack of action to stop him. Since there is really no reaction by the voters or the legal system to stop unjust legal actions they will continue. The long march through the institutions by the progressives worked.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’
–George Santayana
Not to argue, but proverbs are easily flipped while remaining proverbs.
All good things come to those who wait.
But time and tide wait for no man.
Santayana has a point; yet I offer:
Those who remember the past are condemned to fight the last war.
Life is complicated.
It looks to me like the Democrats have been taken over by the lust for power, so anything they can do to gain more power is fine with them.
This only counterbalance to power-lust that I’m aware of is religion with a belief in after death judgement and eternal punishment/reward, coupled with a God who reads hearts and minds instead of headlines and social media. If there is no life after this one, then a person has no reason not to do whatever they can get away with for now. If there is an afterlife, and if it is eternal, it might be wiser to consider that when making decisions.
I have a serious question:
Why/How did the New York legal system allow the Russian Mafia to establish such a large and powerful foothold down on the docks and in the cities around. Did this “Russian organization” come in after 1917 or was it later?
Anne:
Your question is puzzling. What are you getting at with a question about the NY legal system versus the Russian Mafia or any other Mafia? Do you think dealing with organized crime is easy? By “legal system” do you also mean the police, for example? The Mafia – the original Mafia, not the Russian one – was active in NY and also involved with longshoreman on the docks for many many years. Books have been written about this. Movies, even (see “On the Waterfront,” for example). Here’s quite a bit of information about those days, including what law enforcement tried to do about it. Much of that was well-known by New Yorkers of the era. If the Russian Mafia has taken over in recent years, I assume the conflict is not dissimilar.
@Anne:Did this “Russian organization” come in after 1917 or was it later?
1992. The Russian “mafia” long predates Communism and spread throughout the world after the Soviet Union collapsed. They were able to step into the legal void created by the collapse of Soviet legal institutions (i. e. businessmen couldn’t enforce contracts or collect debts legally so they hired criminals to do it). And with that accession of power and money they were able to spread outside Russia.
Much as it was with Cosa Nostra, the mob prefers freedom to do it’s business, thats partially why certain officials brokered deals with Genovese Luciano and co, to aid in the seizing of Sicily and Southern Italy, similar with Operation Dragoon in the South of France which will have it’s 80th anniversary in August, after the war there were even more dealings to keep the Communist so,
in Stalinist Russia, it was even more so, the Bratva prevailed in the black markets, and this led to the rise of characters ike this fellow
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/jury-acquits-yaponchik-of-murder
who must have felt to the residents of Brighton Beach like Baba Yaga, he was utlimately safer in the states, thats the Sotnetvo branch, which considers itself at te pinnacle of Vory y Vor, Thieves World, but they have spread to France to Germany, to the southern spain, not only the Moscow based but the St Petersburg based Tambov, which has allegedly ties to Putin, along with 120 other mobs from around the World,