Unspun Logo

The Rule of Law – Going…

Posted by Rick · July 15th, 2003 · 1 Comment

I’m wondering how long it will be before there’s an official declaration by the Bush regime that the rule of law is over.

Ironically, the end really started by fiat of the Supreme Court in 2000. There’s no way that can be said without sounding partisan. “Partisan”, though, is exactly what the rush to make a decision was. It was critical to do this before the decision could be thrown to a Congress which, back then, had as much possibility of coming down on the side of the Democrats as the Republicans. The Court could not allow that; after all, Congress is elected(!!) and it might take more than one vote for Bush to get into office!!! Worse yet, the will of the people might prevail!

Oddly, the American public said it trusted the Supreme Court to make the decision more than Congress, the Supreme Court of Florida, or the Florida legislature. This is odd because the Supreme Court is frequently as evenly split and clearly partisan as any other group, but their smaller number made it more likely that one vote was going to swing things. And that’s exactly what happened when they appointed the current regime’s leader.

(The article last linked also notes the conflict of interests generated by Scalia’s sons, lawyers who were hired to work on the Bush v. Gore appeal. As the article states, “Scalia did not recuse himself and ruled for Bush.” One of those sons was later appointed by Bush to be the Labor Department’s top lawyer. All five “Justices” who voted to stop the recount were appointed by Republican presidents. Scalia told the Washingtonian Magazine that if Gore were elected, he would leave the Supreme Court, because he would have “no chance” of becoming Chief Justice; the idea of Chief Justice Scalia is something that should strike more fear into the hearts of free humans than any despotic, evil leader who ever lived. Thomas’ wife was preparing to hire people for the Bush administration; she was accepting applications from job applicants for that reason. The article goes on to note that the Supreme Court usually made controversial decisions only when there was a unanimous decision to avoid shaking the confidence of Americans in the Court. Rehnquist’s daughter also benefited from a Bush appointment, although the OutSmart article doesn’t mention this. They have, however, apparently correctly calculated that Americans do not care, or that they will do nothing. Maybe next time, I’ll write an article about the growing “ends justifies the means” and other ills currently plaguing us.)

Since then, of course, Ashcroft has been working overtime to dismantle the American justice system.

And now, today, the Justice Department says it would rather have its case against Moussaoui thrown out of court than obey a judge’s order allowing him to call a witness. Despite more than two centuries of legal precedent, the Department insists that their case is correct and they don’t need—nor will they allow—anyone to say otherwise.

Why should the Bush administration care what a court says now, anyway? No one is running for office.

Categories: Law and Legal Issues


1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Jonathan // Feb 6, 2005 at 2:32 pm

    Well if you think about it, the liberal justices were just as partisan as the conservative judges prima facie. On the other hand, the will of the people comes into conflict with pre fixed rules that decide how ballots are to be counted — which the court agreed with in a 7-2 decision.

Leave a Comment