Over the past 5 years or so, and especially since 2 events emerged – presidential elections of 2020 and ensuing lawsuits, and introduction of covid19 vaccines – politically motivated judicial decision-making has come from being hidden from the view of the majority of the American public – right into the limelight.
It happened because of the issues where this
politically motivated jurisprudence was applied, concerning every single
American.
As this article is showing, we know have a “justice
system” that dishes out political expediency rather than resolves arguments between
parties and delivers justice – and it is early time to celebrate for Democrat
or Democrat-leaning Americans that it is their “teams” and their agendas are as
yet winning in these political expediency decisions.
Political winds may change, but case law and
principles of such decision-making may haunt all Americans for a long time.
This article will show how unlawful politically
motivated judicial decision-making can impose a major undermining of major
rights on fundamental issues related to lives of everyone in this country – on just
two court cases, but seminal cases in their importance for every single
American and our future lives:
A
case where a judge authorized private employers to condition employment on
covid19 vaccination[1],
and
2. A
civil rights case by several voters in Michigan where a judge dismissed
the case without allowing to verify whether what plaintiffs were saying was
true or not through discovery (since the bulk of documentary proof was, as it
usually is in such cases, in the exclusive possession of the government
stonewalling access to it) and a jury trial, but nevertheless sanctioned their
lawyers for bringing the lawsuit[2].
Both cases show interesting tendencies.
First, judges in both cases are blocking the facts
on the key issues of litigation from being discovered and presented to
the jury:
· I In the vaccination case it is discovery from 3rd parties – government-immunized
vaccine manufacturers of Covid19 vaccines[3] – of facts, kept by these
vaccine manufacturers under lock and key, regarding their true efficacy and safety
– or lack thereof;
· In
imposing sanctions against civil rights lawyers in election fraud cases –
regarding the centerpiece issue whether there was or there wasn’t widespread
fraud during the 2020 elections. That is
an issue of fact that only a thorough discovery, and then cross-examination
before juries, can establish.
Second, notwithstanding the lack of stonewalled evidence[4] that the judges did not allow to be discovered and established before a jury – the judges then rule on the merits of the case;
Third, judges in both cases – adamantly and openly refused
to even review the key issues of litigation:
a. Whether
the covid19 vaccines are safe and effective[5],
b. Whether
there was widespread election fraud at the 2020 presidential elections and
whether the “elections were stolen”[6].
They
- 1. block
the true facts from being discovered, and
- 2. rule against the plaintiffs[7] and punish their lawyers[8] without regard whether what
they complained about in their lawsuits were right or wrong.
Ruling against people without allowing to fully
develop and review key issues of litigation on the merits is the opposite of
justice, fairness and the “rule of law”.
Courts exist actually to resolve disputes between
parties, and because of their truth-finding function.
When a court refuses to engage in truth-finding, but
instead firmly declares that it WON’T do the truth-finding, moreover, it DOES
NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS, but it will rule – against the party seeking the
truth – anyway, this is the opposite to the rule of law.
This is tyranny of the worst kind.
It is also a denial of access to court, in violation of
the 1st Amendment Petitions Clause, and 5th and 14th Amendments’ due process
clauses - because of political expediency.
It is also an illustration of how federal judges in
the US – employed in their positions for life – can wreak havoc in
people’s rights by engaging in unlawful, politically motivated judicial
decision-making – or, likely corruption (from which courts have given themselves
absolute immunity).
This type of denial of justice to the entire country
by a few biased or corrupt judges on important issues of public safety and/or
democracy should not be permitted.
[1] Bridges v Houstan Methodist
Hospital, Civil
Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021).
[2] King v Whitmer, Civil Case
No. 20-13134 (US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25,
2021).
[3] Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act (Prep) of 2020 and 2021, https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx
. The way this immunity from liability operates
is that anybody who develops, sells or administers covid19 vaccines is
immunized from liability (injuries or deaths) that the vaccine may cause,
specifically, a lawsuit cannot be filed against such people or entities, discovery
cannot be had and their liability cannot be established before juries – as it can
be done when a person is injured or dies after administration of any other
medicine. Yet, what the PREP Act did not
block is the possibility of subpoenaing vaccine developers and manufacturers as
third parties to testify in discovery and at trial in related cases, such as in
mandatory vaccination cases against employers.
That possibility was blocked in
[4] By vaccine manufacturers (3rd
parties in the lawsuit) in the mandatory vaccination case, and by the
government in the 2nd case.
[5] “Wrongful termination. … Vaccine
safety and efficacy are not considered in adjudicating this issue”, Bridges v Houstan Methodist Hospital, Civil
Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021). at 1 of 5.
[6] “To be clear, for the purpose of
the pending sanctions motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor
has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the
State of Michigan”, King v Whitmer, Civil Case No. 20-13134 (US District
Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25, 2021). at 3 of 110 (footnote omitted).
[7] Bridges v Houstan Methodist
Hospital, Civil
Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021).
[8] King v Whitmer, Civil Case No. 20-13134 (US District
Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25, 2021)..