Guillotine used by French government in Vietnam during the French colonial period. Source: The World, a production of WGBH, Boston. Photo: https://theworld.org/stories/2019/10/16/why-guillotine-may-be-less-cruel-execution-slow-poisoning.
By Christopher J. Bakes
Anytime the ideologues don’t like a United States Supreme Court decision, they attack the Court, casting the ruling as a gross miscarriage of justice.
When conservatism is offended by an opinion, there are never calls for the dismantling of the Court itself.
When many of my fellow Democrats don’t like an opinion, they claim that the Court needs not different appointed justices through the ebbs and flows of our constitutional processes, but that it needs to be packed with justices friendly to their views to make sure a majority always agrees with them.
This is precisely what the Supreme Court should never be, yet that is the continuing position of many a Democrat anytime they do not like an opinion. FDR had his own silly court-packing plan to guarantee rulings of a certain kind (which he stupidly tried and failed at achieving) and today we see it again. It is the clamor for rulings partisans agree with.
It reminds me of attacks on the Electoral College. It won’t always give the Democratic candidate the win, so naturally we must abolish it.
Never mind that the Electoral College makes sure that regional supermajorities (like those in Los Angeles or Chicago or New York) don’t monopolize presidential elections — giving gargantuan majorities to only their candidates who go on to win because of these super majorities. (Little is said about the very poor work product of the Democrats governing these places.) Our country is a federation of 50 sovereign states, each with a constitutional voice
The United States Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States was reasoned and wise. I am stunned once again that so many of my fellow Democrats can once again get everything so wrong.
It is this simple:
We cannot allow prosecutions of Presidents for actions taken within the course and scope of their official positions. This has absolutely nothing to do with exonerating anyone. It has to do with governance and the temptation to use the legal system against political opponents. Acts within the course and scope of a President’s official position are protected against prosecution. Acts outside the course and scope of a President’s official position, and which cannot reasonably be said to be within it, would NOT be protected.
It is a sane, sensible and reasoned decision, based on long-standing legal principles. The Court wisely returned the matter to the lower court for further findings, another very common outcome.
It is Justice Sotomayor’s “outraged” dissenting opinion that should worry us. She and like others who process legal concepts as she does are the dangerous ones. Structure and precedent don’t matter. Feelings and outrage do. Let us remember that it is this crowd who finds common cause with the sloganeers and street vandals of the “Palestine” movement.
Judge them by the company they keep. And stop attacking courts and constitutional processes just because you don’t like the outcome. Judicial outcomes are driven by many factors, not the least of which is that your side may have lost because the question was processed through a filter different than the one you like and use. That is a check on your thinking. Check. Balance. Ring a bell?
The Constitution is designed to force us into dialogue and some form of consensus. Don’t try to bypass the Constitution by threatening to bring out the guillotine, whether what you’re proposing to lop off is heads or legal principles.
“Dear Lord, please give me the patience to deal patiently and thoughtfully with those whose minds function like a lit match. All quick burn, no lasting light.”
The full text of Trump v. United States may be found here.
Christopher J. Bakes is an attorney, a Democrat in the JFK tradition, a former naval officer, an activist for educational alternatives for the poor, an advocate for preservation of the Catholicity of Catholic school classrooms, and an outspoken critic of secular radicalism in education. Christopher is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, multiple federal district and circuit courts, and admitted to the Bars of New York, California, and the District of Columbia.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA