I see posts in the mass media and social media everywhere eagerly anticipating whether the US Supreme Court will or will not "grant" immunity from criminal prosecution to our former President Trump.
I have several questions to the public about this eagerness.
As much as I would not like the demented shadow of a man Joe "Pause" Biden to continue to "lead" this country on a crash course, and as much as I believe, as a person who has practiced criminal law for years, that criminal cases against Trump (all of them) are fabricated and politically motivated, as a legal scholar researching and writing on issues of constitutional law, I have a real problem with several issues in the presidential immunity debate.
First - nobody, as in, I repeat, nobody has a right to absolve people from the reach of criminal law, to permit them to commit crimes in public office.
SCOTUS is not a religious body and may not issue or sell indulgencies.
Commission of crimes in public office runs contrary to the oath of office of the holder of that office.
Second, the US Supreme Court lacks legislative power to create law, and especially, law interfering with states' sovereignty to prosecute (alleged) crimes committed within their borders, or with the federal executive power to charge and prosecute violations of federal crimes.
Thus, the expectation that SCOTUS will create an immunity from criminal liability, federal or state, for President Trump, is an expectation and endorsement for continued unlawful operation of SCOTUS as this country's unlawful superlegislative body that has put a collective absolute monarch, 9 men and women, above any laws and made them the source of laws, contrary to the US Constitution that the court, hypocritically, is sworn to uphold.
That said, no immunity should exist - and that includes (which completely falls through the cracks in the immunity debate) the self-given absolute immunity of judges, and the absolute immunity given by judges to criminal prosecutors.
Consider the sheer impropriety of judges and prosecutors not only in cases against Trump, but in all criminal cases, FABRICATE these cases WITH IMMUNITY/IMPUNITY, as allowed by SCOTUS as the usurper of superlegislative powers in this country to
And, consider the interesting position that attorney regulation plays in this immunity distribution.
Immunity is given in criminal and quasi-criminal ("civil") court cases to anybody, but to the defense attorney.
Not "public policy" of these black-robed crooks to give immunity to the defense of the innocent against fabrications of immunized criminals.
So, the judge and the prosecutor are free to fabricate cases against anybody BUT prosecutors' benefactors who gave prosecutors absolute immunity to commit crimes in office: judges.
Why not? Because if prosecutors dare to prosecute their benefactors, judges, judges will use attorney monopoly (introduced, as NYS AG argues at this time to the 2nd Circuit in Upsolve, Inc v James, to protect consumers) as a sword against such prosecutors, and will simply take their licenses and livelihoods.
As the Pennsylvania state judiciary did to the former state AG Kane who dared to investigate judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the state at all levels.
Do not bite the hand that feeds you. Do not embrace the fantasy that your office is on behalf and to benefit your electorate, not a small clique of immunized criminals.
The immunities so given and so used make all oaths of office a joke, since the moment they take that oath, they may break it with impunity.
And they do. Boy, do they do.
Absolute impunity causes absolute corruption, and corruption causes chaos, which is the very contrary to the rule of law that both sides of the immunity debate hypocritically pledge to.
No comments:
Post a Comment