One of the (many) problems that we have with the entity the U.S government has become is that it has developed "good eyesight".
One of the founding principles of our republic is that we are a nation of laws, and that justice is blind. Not to beat the point to death, but the principle of equal justice for all is so important that we visually represent that concept with the statue of Lady Justice (this particular statue is called many things, but I like Lady Justice), who is blindfolded and holding the scales of justice. I take this particular representation to mean that overall, the law is not supposed to "see" anything beyond the facts, and however the facts in relation to the law determine a case, the only important thing is the facts.
Verbally, we remind ourselves of the principle of equal justice in the last words of the Pledge of Allegiance which are "with liberty and justice for all".
Now we all know of cases where people blatantly got away with committing a crime, cough O.J. Simpson cough. Maybe on the civil side you know of a case where you feel somebody got by with not paying for something they should have or otherwise misbehaved monetarily and got away with it. Actually, now that I think if it, I guess that probably nearly every civil case generates a bad feeling for the law (the "loser"). Maybe we should stick with considering criminal cases as examples.
Right now, we have two blatant examples of how the federal government is either interfering with the law, or the prejudices of the federal government and/or politics in general are seeping (actually, oozing would probably be a more apt description) into the courts.
First, we have the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman case. Before I go on, I just want to say that there isn't anything about this episode that isn't tragic. At the end of the day, whatever happened, Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman's life is ruined. As with most tragedies, the families of these two are also ripped apart.
Not being a fan of sensationalism, I normally would go out of my way to avoid the media hoopla over something like this. Just to point out how the media has handled this in as sensational of a manner as possible, NBC (does that stand for Never Be Caught?) was caught editing the nine-one-one call to make it sound like Zimmerman was making a racist comment to the emergency operator. Actually, he was answering a question the operator had asked about the physical description of Trayvon Martin. Hmmm, maybe we should stop police and their dispatchers from asking descriptive questions because they may be indulging in profiling.
Since NBC has been caught red handed trying to add a racial slur, which doesn't exist, to the nine-one-one tapes (maybe NBC stands for Now Be Contrite), they have announced they are going to "investigate themselves". Gee, I wonder how that investigation is going to work out. It sure wouldn't pay to be the most unpopular person in the editing room at NBC (Never Be Culpable?) right now. I wonder if while they are doing this "investigation", which I'm sure will be very thorough (seriously, there really needs to be a punctuation mark for sarcasm), will they happen to notice that one of the MSNBC (Mr. Sharpton Now Boosting Career?) hosts is rabble rousing (I feel bad about using that term, describing what Al Sharpton does as rabble rousing is unfair to the term rabble rousing) over this very case right now? It really shouldn't take a lot of investigation to uncover that, after all, even someone like myself who avoids the network news has noticed old Al shrieking and yelling in front of every camera he can find. Hey I wonder if Tawana Brawley goes around with him so he can be reminded of his past "glories".
I find it pretty odd that an employee of a news organization can behave like Al is and still remain employed at the "network". Fair warning though, if you happen to be in Florida, make absolutely sure that you never, at any time, cross into the area between Al and a camera. Such an action could result in severe bodily injury or even death if the camera is switched on and Al realizes it.
The Obama himself has directed the Justice Department to look into the Trayvon Martin case. As I understand it, his reason for that is that if he had a son, that son would resemble Trayvon. This is part of what I'm getting at when I say that the eyesight of the federal government is getting to be too good. Obama focusing in on this particular case because of the physical appearance of the victim is exactly what is not supposed to happen when the wheels of American justice turn. The fact that he can turn federal police and investigative forces to this kind of use without a public uproar concerns me greatly.
If The Obama wants to have the Justice Department look into murders, or for that matter any other crimes (I suggest they get their feet wet by looking into gun running to Mexican drug lords), as long as those crimes come under the authority of the justice department, thatâ€™s what they are supposed to be doing anyway. What they specifically are not supposed to be doing is investigating a crime solely because of the skin colors of the people involved.
Obamaâ€™s actions in this case are a further degradation of the American Justice system with the willing cooperation of the main stream media. Does anybody out there think that George Bush or any other Republican President would have been allowed to get away with something like this?
The second high profile thing that is happening with our Justice system right now, and by the way, The Obama is also involved in this one (Iâ€™m sensing a trend), is the case against Obamacare that is before the Supreme Court.
One of the great, arguably the greatest, properties of our justice system is the fact that nearly any legal entity you may deal with has a higher authority which it is answerable to. This means that even if you run into a corrupt or unfair judge, there is an appeal process up to the next level. Not only does this oversight property help limit the number of corrupt or unfair judges, it also helps to assure that every case can get a fair trial one way or the other.
The major exception to this is the Supreme Court. Since there is no judicial appeal beyond a Supreme Court ruling, and their rulings are of great importance, we depend on even handed rulings which should follow the strict letter of the law. Unfortunately, the court has become more and more politicized over the years. Now we have a case (Obamacare) before the court that seems as if it is going to be decided by the political leanings of the Justices, and public polling data. In fact, just as I called it in previous articles and in my book, Elena Kagan has not recused herself from this case, even though she worked for Obamacare's passage when employed by the Obama administration. That just doesnâ€™t sound very impartial or even handed to me. Do you suppose she and The Obama have each other's cell phone numbers?, I sure wouldn't bet against it.
Right now, Barack Obama is out giving public speeches which are very thinly veiled directions, or threats depending on how you take them, towards the United States Supreme Court. Whether you agree, or disagree with how the Supreme Court rules, or has ruled on points of law, they are supposed to be the rock that the American (remember that liberty and justice for all line) legal system rests on. As such, there is no room either on the court, or from outside (such as from the executive branch) for politically pressured decisions. Yet, that is exactly what Barack Obama is trying to do.
Right now Barack Obama is bending the American Justice system on the micro level (Trayvon Martin) to his personal wishes and prejudices. Simultaneously, on the macro level, he is trying to improperly influence the single most important court in the land. These are not the actions of a person who has only the well being of our country in mind.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.