General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor anyone who still believes our justice system will save democracy
I give you Clarence Thomas. We have rapid movement on the kid who sold us out through his Air National Guard position. But where are the cuffs for Justice Thomas??????? We are just not gonna see anything but the speeding up of our descent into authoritarian fascism. There just are not any heroes willing to bow up and stop it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mahina
(20,583 posts)Bullshit.
Welcome to DU!
Downsouthjukin
(86 posts)Yes. We can not expect a bunch of overage lawmakers to protect os from a well funded group of law breakers intent on crushing us.
Fiendish Thingy
(22,700 posts)Without all that messy due process- that would defend democracy, wouldn’t it?
Don’t need no investigation, no indictments, no statutory violations, just select the guilty party, and go get ‘em!
Maybe our special squad could wear the same colour shirts, maybe brown?
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...of our "justice" system without resorting to the knee-jerk presentation of a straw man about eliminating all due process whatsoever?
Are you really that incapable or unwilling to see anything else in between?
MustBeTheBooz
(359 posts)Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Our justice system was never intended to function as a savior of democracy. That's the strawman, if you are looking for one. The attempted false equivalency between Teixeira and Thomas (as in why handcuffs for one and not for the other?) is another strawman on top of the first one.
Our justice system is not meant to save democracy: it is meant to enforce the rules that make saving democracy possible. The actual saving is up to us, the voters. Our justice system is not concerned with appearances, it is concerned with following well established and time-tested rules, imperfect as they are, to facilitate the application of equal justice under the law. Anyone who focuses on the imperfections contained in these rules ought to address their grievances to the legislators with the demand to come up with a perfect set of rules for our justice system to follow.
It goes without saying that unless one case is in every way equivalent to the other, it is ridiculous to expect identical results in both. This is not an inequity or inefficiency of the system. On the contrary, it is a sign of its strength: it does not presume guilt by association, it establishes guilt or innocence through due process of law.
This function of our justice system makes due process central and paramount. You either acknowledge it or you don't. There is no "anything else in between"
betsuni
(28,947 posts)I keep thinking it's like, "Mommy, why aren't all the bad people in jail?"
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...for a burned-out taillight while rich white people remain at large for years when they corrupt our legal system from the very top, or try to overthrow the government?"
Mommy has a lot of explaining to do.
Scrivener7
(59,184 posts)Oh, boy, that is perfectly said.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)No “hero” is going to gallop up and do our job us. No government bureaucracy, including the DoJ, CAN do it for us.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...in some Platonic ideal of justice.
And, whether protecting democracy is a specifically defined purpose for our justice system or not, disappointment if it fails to do so should be expected.
It seems to be doing a piss poor job of that.
The OP is decrying the VAST difference in the response of our legal system. I can't speak for the OP if that particular person expects identical results, but to automatically interpret the post that way is a gotcha game, not a fair or reasonable interpretation.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)There is no question about whether or not this is evident. It is. There is no question whatsoever whether or not it fails to protect our democracy. It is not supposed to. Period. No ifs. Your disappointment, therefore, not only should not be expected, it is completely out of place.
Beyond this, you have yet to articulate the reason(s) why you think the justice system is doing a consistently piss poor job in enforcing the rules that make saving democracy possible. Can you cite a single known rule that the justice system violated, and how this violation relates to your summary judgement of the system? Holding the justice system accountable for following established rules is the opposite of being platonic. Rules is the objective and practical measure of whether or not the system is effective.
The OP is not just decrying the difference in the response of our legal system. The OP is decrying the difference of response in two vastly different and incompatible instances that have been cited by the OP, while spelling out the expected identical response to both. How could you not automatically interpret the post in the way it is intended to be interpreted? This is ridiculous.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Protection of people is certainly an outcome, and a desired one at that, but it isn't the purpose. We, or the representatives we elect, set up the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch makes sure that the laws comport to the Constitution and they adjudicate issues when laws may have been broken.
The problem with the OP was that it was an emotional plea. Merely an expression of frustration that juxtaposed very different situations.
Certainly we should have a discussion about how people with money and power appear to be treated differently than people without. That discussion has been happening a long time.
You may want to ask yourself if the information as presented by the OP inspired that kind of discussion, or if it might have lead to a more snarky response as presented by Fiendish Thingy and others.
Internet forums are notoriously difficult to navigate because unlike in person, or even audio/visual communication, you cannot really infer tone or manner. My interpretation of the OP was similar to Fiendish Thingy's. Another post decrying the state of affairs without any really idea of what we can do to resolve the situation.
I normally don't respond, or at least try not to respond in a snarky way. I usually respond with, "What do you think can be done?" or "What do you propose as some possible solutions to this problem?" Otherwise it is just whining.
wnylib
(25,539 posts)wnylib
(25,539 posts)Excellent, pertinent points.
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)Democracy is alive and well.
Bobstandard
(2,241 posts)I assume yore being ironic, in which case…
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)wnylib
(25,539 posts)So it's up to us to step up and protect it, help it to grow stronger. We can't do that by chucking democratic principles out the window when we see or perceive something wrong.
Bobstandard
(2,241 posts)Face it, Democracy is on the ropes. No, Democracy is down, and I don’t` know if were at the 8 count, the 9 or the 10, but we might not be able to get it up off the ground again.
What we can do, and I especially mean our Democratic representatives in the Senate and House, is use that First Amendment to call out the Republicans using language as extreme and charged as republicans use. I don’t know if you listen to Kieth Olbermann, but he’s the only public figure on our side who uses the language that many more ought to be using, who brings the level of outrage that others with a bigger pulpit ought to be using. It’s the language that the other side has proved works. We should take the hint.
wnylib
(25,539 posts)rhetorical sarcasm.
I am well aware of how bad things are. Not only in the US, but around the world.
Yes, our elected Democratic officials do need to speak up plainly and loudly. And we, the rank and file, need to keep getting our message out everywhere we can, but especially to work on campaigns to get the right people elected.
RockRaven
(19,045 posts)counting on the judiciary to save democracy, as you put it, is really brain dead.
But the Air National Guard traitor and Thomas have apples and oranges infractions... The former are felonies and terminally-online stupid, the latter are misdemeanors and egregiously corrupt.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Presidents? Nah, not really.
Members of Congress? They're governed by um....traditions and rules.
Actually, all of them are for most things. For the big stuff, we leave it up to a baroque system that as it turns out is very easily gamed should one of the major parties decide it wants to do so.
In other words, our government at the highest levels was designed to be based on trust.
And as it turns out, that might have been a mistake.
Phoenix61
(18,784 posts)He reported income under the old name of a company instead of the new name of the company.
He accepted gifts and didn’t declare them. Incredibly unethical but illegal?
We don’t need a hero. We need to vote like our democracy depends on it because it does. I’m super encouraged to see the sheer number of young adults engaging in the political process.
edhopper
(37,248 posts)from entities with business in front of the Court is illegal. They are called bribes, even if no one has the guts to prosecute him for it.
Phoenix61
(18,784 posts)Judicial record undermines Clarence Thomas defence in luxury gifts scandal
But a close look at Thomas’s judicial activities from the time he became friends with Crow, in the mid-1990s, suggests that the statement might fall short of the full picture. It reveals that a conservative organization affiliated with Crow did have business before the supreme court while Thomas was on the bench.
In addition, Crow has been connected to several groups that over the years have lobbied the supreme court through so-called “amicus briefs” that provide legal arguments supporting a plaintiff or defendant.
Phoenix61
(18,784 posts)Winning a bribery case takes so much more than that. It’s all unethical but illegal is a much higher bar.
Siegelman in Alabama. Add to all the money Ginni gets from other organizations that have business with the Court.
They are clearly bribes, even if no one wants to prosecute.
Bobstandard
(2,241 posts)And where has that gotten us?
(And don’t suggest that Im against voting. It just ain’t enough. And imagining it is is wishful thinking.
Phoenix61
(18,784 posts)college. That’s not what cost us the USSC. We didn’t have the Senate. We should never have stopped following Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy.
Meowmee
(9,212 posts)Part of the reason this is happening is one, the terrible system, which allows corruption by wealth and influence, and two, too many say nothing can be done for obvious corruption and think that it is ok.
I lost whatever confidence or believe was there in the court and system when they anointed w. There is always some loophole or reason why “nothing” can be done according to many.
This system makes royalty out of justices who are simply humans, crooked, corrupt, and crazy in this case.
DFW
(59,995 posts)If a democracy deteriorates and allows itself to become flawed, so, too, will its justice system deteriorate and become flawed. The situation is either fixed or allowed to deteriorate altogether, and both are the results of actions (or lack thereof) of the people of the country/society concerned.
If voting rights are curtailed, and other corruptions (gerrymandering, e.g.) are institutionalized, the deterioration process is already underway. If the populace halts that and corrects it, the democracy survives. If the deterioration is not halted, then it continues and that society fails, and is replaced--usually by something different, not always by something better.
Downsouthjukin
(86 posts)I am frustrated. I am. I am just so tired of seeing the rich and powerful ignore the law with impunity. The average man sees wife justice and accountability while the rich and powerful thumb their noses at what are supposed to be our laws. And so many normalize it. It just is pissing me off to no end. If there are not severe consequences and soon for the lawless especially the lawless that own a good portion of our elected officials and a bunch of those elected and appointed officals we are doomed. We are at a point now where its questionable if we will be able to vote our way to recovering our democracy. I really don't think the forces who are trying to overthrow democracy, the Republican/traitors are counting on winning elections by the fact they are gonna stand by Trump as their 2024 candidate so they must have another plan that does not involve democratic rule. The red states are all essentially ignoring democracy already.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)What law has Thomas broke? Not what you think SHOULD be law, but what ACTUAL law? As for the severe consequences, there have been 40+ years to inflict those consequences and prevent ALL of this nonsense.. The voting public did not do it. THAT is how we got here.
Downsouthjukin
(86 posts)But I believe he failed to report 600,000 in income for his wife and failed to disclose under penalty of law the sale of property to his Master Harlan Crow.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)but step one is not "Put on the handcuffs, you are going to jail". Step one is the IRS saying, "Hey, looks like you didn't report some of your income... you should do that ASAP." If you amend your returns or disclosure forms and pay the taxes on the income... there is no step 2. Maybe you get a penalty and extra fees, but you usually do not end up in prison.
The reason Al Capone went to prison is because 1. The Feds really wanted him in prison for murder and racketeering and 2. There was NO WAY he was going to be able to fix his books since everyone knew his income was made from illegal activity. The government did not have enough evidence to make that case, so they got Capone on what they could. "You didn't pay the taxes on your crime income..."
As much of a disgusting POS as Thomas is, he is not Al Capone. He is a powerful man with very rich friends. He is certainly unethical and I would opine that he does not deserve to be on the bench, let alone the Supreme Court, but he is there and they have different, or NO ethics rules they currently have to follow. That should definitely be changed.
KPN
(17,287 posts)Also, I prefer Al Capone over Clarence Thomas -- not that I condone either., but it just seems that Clarence Thomas has done much greater harm overall.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Americans have a pretty dismal track record of holding its most powerful people to account.
That is certainly something that needs to be addressed.
Al Capone v Clarence Thomas is an issue of power. While Capone certainly held power over life and death for the people of Cisero, Chicago, and elsewhere, he was limited in scope. Thomas has the power of legitimacy and the weight of the United States Government on his side. He has certainly had the opportunity, and has taken it, to do more damage to America than Capone.
Capone was also upfront about what he wanted. Thomas has for the most part, kept quiet about his views, simply voting in the most atrocious ways.
KPN
(17,287 posts)but that’s how it is. We Americans are too comfortable as a whole presently to muster sufficient protest to do anything about Thomas.
Get Me Outta Here
(97 posts)but where do I take him?
Kaleva
(40,301 posts)Can you cite the specific laws?
Scrivener7
(59,184 posts)
Autumn
(48,893 posts)Their enforcers, police, the military and intelligence agencies and the DOJ have the power and we people can't take them on. The justice system is not even doing a very good job of meting out justice. But then the problem with that is the people we elect select those who mete and enforce justice. They aren't doing a very good job either. I think our democracy was a nice experiment but it's failed.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)I realize everyone has a right to their opinion, but we seem to get one of these every week.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
Kingofalldems
(40,127 posts)
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)is that the Judicial is the most flawed of our three branches of government. Although I must say Trump managed to bring the Executive branch down more than a few notches.