CommentsCORRUPTION WATCH-U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts defended the judicial system from Trump-a-Doodle’s lies about Obama judges by promoting the myth of judicial integrity.
People who shun complexity in favor of hysterically shouting emotional memes find the notion that judges rule to please whomever appointed them to be comforting. The lie permits them to dismiss fact-based analysis. Trump falsehoods appeal to those who base their lives on faith. One may prove his/her faith by believing something which is obviously false, i.e. the earth was created in six days. Thus, faith-based people easily believe that politics of the “Obama judge” dictated the order.
Most likely, another reason that Trump believes his falsehood of “Obama judges” is that he demands personal loyalty to himself above all else. Is anyone unaware of Trump-the-Terrible’s non-stop ire at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for following the law by recusing himself from the Mueller investigation? Anyone who thinks that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not signal some sort of personal loyalty to Trump to be nominated lives in fantasy land.
“Political” and “Honest” Do Not Mean the Same Thing
A political judge would rule based upon his/her political beliefs. While all judges see the world through the lens of their own world views, when it comes to making decisions based upon politics, our judiciary is relatively okay.
Politics had nothing to do with the Judge Tigar’s order. TROs (Temporary Restraining Orders) are routinely issued to maintain the status quo – to keep things the way they are. Then within a couple weeks, the court considers a preliminary injunction. Based on the additional information, the judge may end the injunction, or he may continue it subject to certain conditions.
What Was the Legal Issue Facing Judge Tigar?
The law in question is 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) which expressly permits an asylum claim by “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival)." The Trump Administration’s new rule ignores those quoted words.
One would hope that a high school kid who got even a C minus in Civics Class would know that the President lacks the constitutional right to edit a law enacted by Congress. Trump follows Louis XIV (“L'État, c'est moi”), and believes that the law is whatever he says it is.
Trump presented a constitutional issue to the court. A judge who did not grant a TRO to stop Trump from unilaterally changing the U.S. Code would incur nationwide ridicule. As so often happens with Trump-a-Doodle, the judge was following the law while Trump wanted Judge Tigar to become his personal political tool.
The Crucial Distinction between Politicization and Corruption
One reason there is not too much politicization of constitutional issues in the federal courts is that constitutional cases get close scrutiny from the legal profession, especially from law school professors and constitutional pundits. The talking heads on TV will expose political attacks on the Constitution but run of the mill corruptionism for personal gain which plagues our entire judicial system operates in darkness.
The federal judiciary in California excoriated the California state courts as having a “epidemic of misconduct,” focusing blame on the state court judges. In Contra Costa County, California, for example, there is a significant judicial recall campaign underway to remove corrupt judges from the family courts. The California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye came from perhaps the worse Family Court system in the state.
California Judges and District Attorneys such as Los Angeles County and Orange County are mired in corruption, which is a main reason the Orange County voters elected Todd Spitzer as their new District Attorney. People indirectly learned of the role of the corruption in the OC DA’s Office and its sheriff department, when one honest judge, Judge Thomas Goethals, took action against the dishonesty.
Did the voters, however, comprehend that the years of misconduct and railroading of people into prison and huge fines were being overseen by the OC judges? Probably not! The OCDA blacklisted Judge Goethals which highlights that the DA knew he could continue his dishonesty with the other judges.
Now we Come to Chief Justice Robert’s Myth
Justice Roberts said: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
Justice Roberts fuses politicization with dishonesty by claiming judicial independence, which he quickly conflates with judicial integrity. By concealing the courts’ lack of integrity under the wrappings of judicial independency, Justice Roberts is silent on the vast corruption infesting the state and federal courts. People who have been trampled by our judicial system believe the worst about the courts based on their own experiences. Thus, not only does the belief in political judges lend credence to Trump’s charge, but the experience of Joe Average supports the notion that the courts lack integrity.
Trump failed to foresee that upon his becoming President, daylight would shine on his courtroom squabbles. No longer could privileges at a Trump golf course carry the judicial day. Quite the opposite, his cases would receive the maximum amount of scrutiny.
The Myth of Judicial Integrity is Misplaced
Justice Roberts’ myth of judicial integrity is the Brahmins’ way of ruling. They espouse myths from their lofty positions and expect the rabble to behave as if the myths are true. If the public knew the full extent of the corruption, self-dealing and bigotry that permeates our judicial system, it is unlikely many would voluntarily abide by its decisions. Justice Roberts seems to believe that he can make the judiciary safe for corruptionism as long as he re-enforces the myth of judicial integrity. He may be correct.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
