Justice Unblinded
It's a sad day for many American women, and it's a sad day for American justice. Brett Kavanaugh has joined the Supreme Court. The blatant disregard by sad, white men of the people they are said to represent is infuriating and frustrating. But it isn't just that they follow their own agenda, it is that they decided to keep most of Kavanaugh's files secret, and not even let their fellow senators look at it. It is also that they used the FBI to mount a sham investigation, limiting it by telling the agents what they could and could not look into. Their actions, in favor of a narcissistic president, will mark the beginning of the end of the American experiment in representational democracy.
Much has been made of Kavanaugh's disrespect of women as a drunken teenager and college student. That's bad enough. Much has also been made of his disagreement on abortion, and his antagonism towards Roe vs. Wade. That is also bad, but at the moment, there is no docketed case that might affect that precedent. What is key, though, is a case called Gamble vs. United States. That case could end up directly affecting Donald Trump and his future relationship with the law courts.
A felon called Terance Gamble was pulled over in Alabama in 2015, and was discovered to have a hand gun in his car. It is against both Federal and Alabama state law for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. He was tried by Alabama, and then also tried by the Federal government. It is argued by his lawyer that this is a violation of the "double jeopardy" clause in the Fifth Amendment. The courts have so far argued, that based on precedent, both the State of Alabama and the Federal Government are two separate sovereignties and both have the right to try a person when a crime overlaps both.
This "dual sovereignty" means that a person pardoned for a Federal crime, can still be tried by the State where that crime was committed, because the State is within its sovereignty to charge a person with that crime. And Federal pardons cannot be issued for crimes at the State level.
So, if Kavanaugh is sitting on the Court when the case is argued, he can rule against "dual sovereignty" by arguing it violates the "double jeopardy" clause. What does this mean? It means that, those charged in Mueller's investigation into Trump's misdeeds, can be pardoned by Trump if convicted in Federal court, and then the State courts could not try them, even when their actions are criminal according to State law. Eventually, it means that presidential pardons can be more far-reaching. And I don't believe any of us think Trump is above pardoning himself.
And Brett Kavanaugh has opined that sitting presidents should not be indicted, effectively saying that they are above the law. He has also mentioned that the ruling way back when, during the Watergate investigation, by the Supreme Court, ordering Nixon to hand over the tapes, was wrong. Precisely because of his belief of the non-indictability of a sitting president.
I haven't studied constitutional law, and I don't have the knowledge to express all the different reasonings, but I have been reading up, and it is a little bit frightening. Why do the Republican senators feel they need to rush this and make sure Kavanaugh does get in? I think it must be because he has assured them in private just how he would rule in Gamble vs. United States. This opens up a horizon in which many would never face jail time nor stiff fines if they are ever charged with a crime, not as long as Trump or another of their ilk is sitting in the White House.
Which leads me to the scarier thinking: what if they are moving pawns and knights so that they can make sure one of their fellows keeps the White House, practically in perpetuity? A soft dictatorship doesn't seem so crazy, given the power these people have. Deny the vote to enough people you know will vote against you; gerrymander enough districts to favor you; in last instance, tinker with the voting machines, using an outside source. It's possible, and I wouldn't put it past any of those sad, old men, who are probably giggling and rubbing their hands in glee at how they've set things up. They're probably just waiting for the apple to fall, ripe and red, into their hands.
Much has been made of Kavanaugh's disrespect of women as a drunken teenager and college student. That's bad enough. Much has also been made of his disagreement on abortion, and his antagonism towards Roe vs. Wade. That is also bad, but at the moment, there is no docketed case that might affect that precedent. What is key, though, is a case called Gamble vs. United States. That case could end up directly affecting Donald Trump and his future relationship with the law courts.
A felon called Terance Gamble was pulled over in Alabama in 2015, and was discovered to have a hand gun in his car. It is against both Federal and Alabama state law for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. He was tried by Alabama, and then also tried by the Federal government. It is argued by his lawyer that this is a violation of the "double jeopardy" clause in the Fifth Amendment. The courts have so far argued, that based on precedent, both the State of Alabama and the Federal Government are two separate sovereignties and both have the right to try a person when a crime overlaps both.
This "dual sovereignty" means that a person pardoned for a Federal crime, can still be tried by the State where that crime was committed, because the State is within its sovereignty to charge a person with that crime. And Federal pardons cannot be issued for crimes at the State level.
So, if Kavanaugh is sitting on the Court when the case is argued, he can rule against "dual sovereignty" by arguing it violates the "double jeopardy" clause. What does this mean? It means that, those charged in Mueller's investigation into Trump's misdeeds, can be pardoned by Trump if convicted in Federal court, and then the State courts could not try them, even when their actions are criminal according to State law. Eventually, it means that presidential pardons can be more far-reaching. And I don't believe any of us think Trump is above pardoning himself.
And Brett Kavanaugh has opined that sitting presidents should not be indicted, effectively saying that they are above the law. He has also mentioned that the ruling way back when, during the Watergate investigation, by the Supreme Court, ordering Nixon to hand over the tapes, was wrong. Precisely because of his belief of the non-indictability of a sitting president.
I haven't studied constitutional law, and I don't have the knowledge to express all the different reasonings, but I have been reading up, and it is a little bit frightening. Why do the Republican senators feel they need to rush this and make sure Kavanaugh does get in? I think it must be because he has assured them in private just how he would rule in Gamble vs. United States. This opens up a horizon in which many would never face jail time nor stiff fines if they are ever charged with a crime, not as long as Trump or another of their ilk is sitting in the White House.
Which leads me to the scarier thinking: what if they are moving pawns and knights so that they can make sure one of their fellows keeps the White House, practically in perpetuity? A soft dictatorship doesn't seem so crazy, given the power these people have. Deny the vote to enough people you know will vote against you; gerrymander enough districts to favor you; in last instance, tinker with the voting machines, using an outside source. It's possible, and I wouldn't put it past any of those sad, old men, who are probably giggling and rubbing their hands in glee at how they've set things up. They're probably just waiting for the apple to fall, ripe and red, into their hands.
There should be tears falling from her eye . . . .
ReplyDelete