From a purely theoretical standpoint, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential (read: “Trump’s”) immunity confirms the empirical observation that our Nation affirmatively entirely qualifies for designation as a “free market economy.” Perceiving the transactional nature of such a decision, from a political and constitutional context, it appears, irrefutably, revelatory of the High Court’s cataclysmic sell-out and shameless betrayal of the very foundational theme of our Democratic Republic, as conceived by our Founders and subsequently implicit in our Nation’s systemic history.
It requires little argument to declare that defined principles, existentially definitive of our uniquely conceived and democratically dedicated Nation, have notably related to citizen equality; as opposed to the unjust history of European class status. The latter, visibly, was zealously avoided by the intent expressed in the provisions of the First Ten and the Fourteenth Amendments, subsequently confirmed by consistent, judicial precedent.
The conception of a tri-partite governmental architecture, to respectively share governmental power, viz., Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (SCOTUS), denominated, as the “Separation of Powers,” each with the right to restrain the excessive practice of power of the other, is a matter of constitutional history, and, in a similar fashion not require argumentative support. The wisely-conceived experiment, with certain later, historical mishaps, arguably due to the innate infirmities of the universal human psyche, proved to be pragmatically useful, albeit, somewhat, still aspiring to the goal of principled improvement.
We recall a contextually instructive episode from Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises,” in which one character asks another, “How did you go bankrupt?’ The response: “At first, gradually, then, suddenly.” It would seem pragmatically impossible to cite the innumerable instances in which the Hemingway quote, (seemingly mundane, but on contemplation, one of empirical universality. On an unrelated subject, we hope it will not prove applicable to the already roiling indicia of a global warming catastrophe. However, we are sadly inclined to confirm the dynamic applicability of the quoted statement to the disastrous and disheartening downward transmogrification of the previously venerated, Supreme Court of the United States.
Until SCOTUS’s anomalous acceptance and disposition of the case of Bush v. Gore, in the year 2000, the High Court was universally perceived as a learned institution, especially exemplified by its fiduciary responsibility to ensure consistent precedential justice. As prescribed in the Constitution and the American rule of law. To comply with the constitutionally mandated, status of the “Separation of Powers,” it was a necessary prerequisite that SCOTUS’s acceptance of a case was dependent upon a showing by the aspiring applicant (by “Writ of Certiorari”) of the total absence of any political issue or legal effect of any SCOTUS’s disposition As an empirical matter, the Rule’s proscription of political content, together with the assignment of life terms of the constituent Justices, contributed to the existentially relevant, need to insulate the Court from outside influence and insure fiduciary responsibility to the Nation and its historic Rule of Law.
In the main, with anecdotal exceptions, such as the 19th Century, Dred Scott case, (J. Taney,) the High Court demonstrated a history of deserved veneration, dedicatedly serving its constitutionally responsible role of National judicial oversight. The recall of names of such Justices as Holmes, Brandeis, Douglas, Cardozo, and Brennan summons feelings of respect and gratitude for their admirable and persuasive efforts to preserve constitutional compliance and universal justice.
All this changed. as per the cited Hemingway quote, “gradually,” by the sudden and contemptuous morphing of its dispositive legal responsibility to one of acceptance of matters of legal import. From such an irresponsible point, cases such as “Citizens Union” were accepted and adjudicated, demonstrating an unheard-of bias and the shameful promotion of “special interests.” The Citizens Taxpayers Union case, (2009) exemplifies a painful example. In said catastrophic case, the extant toxicity of “Money” in politics was shamefully exacerbated by an atypically reasoned, sophomoric, but democratically devastating, decision that since corporations are “people,” their freedom to donate money to political elections is constitutionally unlimited. The all-too-evident desire on the part of, the previously scholarly and objective Court, to satisfy the political interests of the self-interested large corporations was shamefully evident in its unabashed, fun-house, gross distortion of the commercially limited, fictional application of the utilized word, “person” as contractually afforded to the legal entity of the corporation. This fictional status has existed since the period of “Elizabeth the First” period, strategically created by the English Parliament to limit the personal liability of the relevant human entrepreneur. The protective conceit was and still is (as undeniably known by every law school freshman and businessperson) an accepted but merely utilitarian, legal fiction, employed to limit the commercial liability of the human entrepreneur, (notably, in a past society in which debtors were subject to imprisonment). The tactically atrophied extension of the breathing and feeling human persona to the modern commercial status of a “corporate “person” deserving of citizen entitlement to the constitutional, “Bill of Rights” is a transparent, tactically employed, and transparently arrogant obscenity.
Our Hemingway-style gradual erosion of the informed citizen’s appropriate respect for the High Court was catalyzed by the politically self-serving appointment of MAGA-compliant Justices due to the bizarre political ascendency of the autocratic and immoral, Donald Trump. Since such democratic catastrophe, the upright American citizen has seen the sudden (Hemingway described) decline in both legal and moral principles of the six Conservatively appointed (of the nine) SCOTUS Justices. The acceptance of magnificent gifts by one Justice, who is married to a fervent supporter of Trump’s insurrection, the public, flag-flying demonstration of MAGA, and the insurrection by another, transparently, compliant to the interests of the anti-democratic, religious lobby are informative examples of the steep extent of the suddenly evident, moral and legally responsible institution.
The appropriate icing was applied to the uneatable bitter judicial cake, baked by the High Court’s recent decision to the effect that Trump, the multifarious committer of uncountable acts of societal and criminal felonies, (91 indictments, 34 jury-determined guilty verdicts, election denier, and producer of insurrection, is immune from liability on all official (?) acts as former President.
As I once more gaze at my prodigious bookshelf and espy, Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises.” I am caused to wonder, will the Democratic Republic endure and the Sun again rise on its much-vaunted democracy and its fiduciary guardian, the Supreme Court.?
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 