Court wrong on immunity ruling
To the Editor:
The convicted (but yet to be sentenced) felon who sent an armed mob bent on mayhem to attack the U.S. Capitol in a desperate attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election returned to the scene of the crime on Thursday, June 13, and was welcomed with open arms by members of the “values” party, the once proud defender of “law and order,” the Grand Old Party (you remember), the party whose members fled in panic three years ago last January less they be killed (or in the case of the vice president, hung) on a scaffold erected just outside the United States Capitol (Whew!).
Donald Trump was welcomed like a Roman conqueror returning from the wars in a golden chariot. The Associated Press reported the festive occasion in a “tweet” no less: “Donald Trump made a triumphant return to Capitol Hill on Thursday, his first with lawmakers since the January 6 attacks, embraced by energized House and Senate Republicans who find themselves reinvigorated by his bid to retake (retake?) the White House.” The word “retake” concerns me. Can we presume that implies by whatever means their dear leader deems necessary?
The term “equal justice under law” is the main principle of the judicial system in the United States, deemed so vital that it’s engraved above the entrance of the Supreme Court building. It means that every person in the United States is entitled to receive equal and fair treatment from the law. These words express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court and as the final reviewer and judge of the law, the High Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law, acting as our guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
By the same token, we as citizens also have an obligation (a duty) to the judicial process. Just as it’s a fundamental right of citizens to have their judicial case heard and decided by a “jury of their peers,” and since “peers” means you and me, thus every citizen, in his or her role as a juror, performs this basic but very vital function and responsibility essential to the concept of democracy.
The 12-member jury in New York fulfilled their obligation as Donald Trump’s peers, finding him guilty of all 34 counts charged. Interlopers seem to have interceded and at least temporarily prevented that court from carrying out its obligation to provide the accountability the jury’s decision requires.
Related Items
Trump’s election tells us a lot
This must be the place: ‘Armed with will and determination, and grace, too’
We will reap what we’ve sown
Maybe Trump’s win was about policy
The framers of the Constitution clearly intended the Supreme Court to rule on cases solely on the basis of facts, evidence and law, unencumbered and above the pressures and persuasions of the general public. Today’s Supreme Court is indeed being compelled (and disadvantageously to be sure), not only by public interest groups seeking to advance policy positions but unmistakably to partisan political devotees in their unending quest for power, wealth and influence, to which the Roberts Court (a.k.a., the Trump Court) has proven itself a particularly willing and easy mark.
David L. Snell
Franklin
