I think it was the erudite and estimable Maya Wiley who in the cable TV discussions of whether or not the Chief "Justice" John Roberts would step in to break a tie on whether or not to give the fixed-trail of Donald Trump a patina of legitimacy of having witnesses and hearing new evidence noted that Roberts' predicted refusal to break a tie was not the non-choice that a former Department of Justice lawyer said Roberts would make "on principle" but refusing to take that long-precidented action in the trial would, itself be a choice with a very definite and known result.
I think that that is a good example of how a choice to refuse to make a choice is not made out of "principle" it is made for the purpose of producing a knowable end. Either an end relevant to the issues of such a choice, in this case whether or not to force the "jurors" in the case to hear what appears to be even more conclusive evidence that Trump broke the law, that he did so for his own corrupt personal gain and that he did so to rig the 2020 election in the way that was congenial to the Republican majority of the "jurors". The other, rather stupidly presented as more idealistic ends were Roberts maintaining a pose of his own above-it impartiality and to protect the reputation of the Supreme Court and the judiciary in general. Of course it wouldn't possibly [snigger] have anything to do with Roberts being a Republican political hack, a member of the same ideological gang that has made ratfucking a Constitutionally protected right, the one who opened the door that Trump, the Mercers, Putin walked through to rig the 2016 election.
The levels of hypocrisy dressed up for a costume ball of "principle" of "integrity" of "objectivity" on display in the legal-Republican-political world are breathtaking to behold. I have in the past criticized calling what goes on in this "Kabuki" theater but if that has any relevance, it does in the likes of Roberts who has trained to perform that role and was chosen to practice that level of hypocritical pursuit of personal advantage and ideologically perferrered aims being sought while pretending he's merely being impartial. He's a more skilled faker of that than Sandra Day O'Connor was, though she was certainly good enough for the media to play their part in maintaining the suspension of reason that should lead to disbelief in the spectacle being presented.
And it's not only a performance in the admittedly Republican world, it has become the favorite play all across the field.
It's the same game that the ACLU plays in its promotion of the same ends while pretending to not know that that's exactly what they are doing. After a half a century of being able to see the results of their pursuit of "civil liberties" in which they win exactly the same rights for billionaires and their dollars to speak that they do for those with no money, you would have to be a lot stupider than the average or above average graduate of even a mid-level law school could be to ignore what that has produced. And I really do mean that the ACLU won that speech right for those dollars held in such large amounts by billionaires and in such modest quantities by the poor, the destitute, the discriminated against, they supported one of the worst in that line of decisions I castigate so often, Buckley v Valeo, in which they sided with the fascist James Buckley over the attempt to get money out of our elections. I'm tempted to link to the long line of double-speaking justification for the great association that has suckered liberals into funding its sandbagging of traditional American liberalism, of egalitarian democracy issued by Ira Glasser,a former Executive Director but I'm not linking to it. It is a load of post-facto bullshit justification for what it has done, with eyes wide open, against warnings of what their bringing such cases to increasingly corrupt Republican-fascist, Federalist Society hack dominated Supreme Courts, that you can find it yourself.
I have mentioned recently the fact that it was largely NOT the lawyers and lawmen working in or formerly associated with the Department of Justice and the FBI who, in the hour of peril, stepped forward against orders in order to expose the lawlessness of Trump, his staff, the Attorney General, it was those who live in actual life, on the front lines of diplomacy in dangerous places, it was patriotic soldiers who had seen combat who confirmed what the whistle blower revealed. The rot in the legal profession and in that world doesn't infect everyone but it is certainly at pandemic levels, I would say it's even more common among the media. It's certainly obvious in the "liberal" icon, the ACLU.
The ACLU can go screw themselves for a change, they've screwed the rest of us long enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment