"Justice, justice you shall pursue," the Bible commands (Deuteronomy 16:20); and that, in doing justice, one must not "recognize faces." Commentators ask why the good book repeats the word justice, since every word is thought to have significance. The most relevant is that there are two kinds of justice: substantive and procedural.
Professor, it's good to see you cite the Torah, awareness of which is the only hope that would restore morality to the American official populace. American morality would be well served If in humility we make Trump President again. The man has shown uncommon heroic restraint & dignity through the terrible injustices perpetrated upon him by the dishonourable American justice system & its fellow travellers of lesser men baying for his blood. Trump' foreign policy was the most effective in our history, no wars, America first, made him our greatest President by far, since Lincoln.
You are correct. It is not only the flagrant corruption and weaponization of the judicial process by so-called progressives to attack one person, it that there is virtually no attempt in even the simple "appearance" of fair and equitable justice. Progressives feel so secure in their virulent hatred mandate against their political opponent that they break every rule of law to execute their political agenda. As Ronald Reagan once said: " If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of Liberalism". Every day I see more and more evidence of this trend. Stalin would be proud.
Excellent analysis. Get Trump whatever it takes, including violence. If they can not do it legally, they will do it illegally. Please us my real name JRB Ware.
Justice Frankfurter's definition of liberty as "largely a history of procedural fairness" is actually very modern. Prior to Locke, justice was mostly about outcome not procedures. To quote the Torah, as you did, "an eye for an eye". That's not procedural; that's a defined outcome. Thus the progressives' focus on outcome-based justice is not a new standard at all; it's very old. Modern liberals have broken with the Enlightenment by adopting a shared definition of "good" (a collectively defined moral order) and are defining "justice" as, that which brings about a "good" outcome.
This is precisely what the Medievals did, and they learned it from the Church theologians, who learned it from the ancient Greeks. Until Decartes, the idea of defining "justice" without a definition of "goodness" would have been nonsensical. No one from from Luther to Aquinas to Scotus to Augustine to Plato would recognize it. Aristotle's definition of "liberty" as "the freedom to pursue virtue" presupposes a shared definition of the latter term.
A society's law is only procedural because it is a codified expression of the members' shared moral order. So why is our "rule of law" breaking down today? Because Locke and Mill and Nietzsche destroyed our "shared moral order", and we're now reaping the whirlwind.
This is why appeals to "the rule of law" won't work against today's liberals. Just like appeals to "religious liberty" or "academic freedom" won't. What is any of that if it results in evil outcomes? (Which to them, it does.) We need a competing definition of "good" and a willingness to use electoral power to enforce it. That's what post-liberalism looks like. I don't like it either (I'd prefer a broadly tolerant society built on Judeo-Christian norms) but that's where we are.
I also don't see how it is fair to hold a former president to different standards with things such as the Espionage Act. Not only have they not prosecuted many senior official in the past in possession of classified intelligence the president is in a different boat. It can be said that the PRA does indeed apply here as it is the only specific law that covers the records of former presidents. The EA is general law and was never intended to be used against a former president who had copies of his own records. So the DOJ's strongest case is really just an ownership dispute that could have and should have been argued in civil court. There is absolutely zero legal precedent here.
Are these Get Trump lawyers members of the 65 Project lawyers group that destroys lawyers reputations in their communities and firms, if they represent President Trump? This is vile.
Past this, the problem I see is that no one really has to Prove anything in today's courts.
They make the law up as they go along, using phrases like 'inciting violence' and ignoring the precedent, adding 'unlawfully ' or ' falsely' to bias the juries, applying law that is being used for the first time for this purpose, and selectively picking the laws that apply while ignoring others that hurt their case.
I think it is a forgone conclusion that In Georgia and DC Trump will be found guilty of something, and only after a delay of long enough to assure a Democrat win in the general, will he successfully appeal and be exonerated.
Dear Dr. Dershowitz. Please would you help us or recommend a pro bono family lawyer here in South Florida who would help. My daughter literally escaped from a violent alcoholic husband who threatened her with his gun in front of my little grandchildren. She is divorcing him but does not have money for a lawyer . Her future ex hired a lawyer who is threatening to get 50/50 custody of these precious babies 5 and 3 who he has repeatedly abused and molested. Please will you help us? Thank you: m75goggin@gmail.com
(We've gone to legal aide and they just give legal advice)
I won't venture a guess as to the motives of the prosecutors, but Trump's lead over Republican rivals in public opinion polls has increased after each indictment was announced, which I daresay gladdens the hearts of Democratic pols and strategists, as there's good reason to assume Trump cannot win the next general election.
Professor, it's good to see you cite the Torah, awareness of which is the only hope that would restore morality to the American official populace. American morality would be well served If in humility we make Trump President again. The man has shown uncommon heroic restraint & dignity through the terrible injustices perpetrated upon him by the dishonourable American justice system & its fellow travellers of lesser men baying for his blood. Trump' foreign policy was the most effective in our history, no wars, America first, made him our greatest President by far, since Lincoln.
You are correct. It is not only the flagrant corruption and weaponization of the judicial process by so-called progressives to attack one person, it that there is virtually no attempt in even the simple "appearance" of fair and equitable justice. Progressives feel so secure in their virulent hatred mandate against their political opponent that they break every rule of law to execute their political agenda. As Ronald Reagan once said: " If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of Liberalism". Every day I see more and more evidence of this trend. Stalin would be proud.
Excellent analysis. Get Trump whatever it takes, including violence. If they can not do it legally, they will do it illegally. Please us my real name JRB Ware.
Justice Frankfurter's definition of liberty as "largely a history of procedural fairness" is actually very modern. Prior to Locke, justice was mostly about outcome not procedures. To quote the Torah, as you did, "an eye for an eye". That's not procedural; that's a defined outcome. Thus the progressives' focus on outcome-based justice is not a new standard at all; it's very old. Modern liberals have broken with the Enlightenment by adopting a shared definition of "good" (a collectively defined moral order) and are defining "justice" as, that which brings about a "good" outcome.
This is precisely what the Medievals did, and they learned it from the Church theologians, who learned it from the ancient Greeks. Until Decartes, the idea of defining "justice" without a definition of "goodness" would have been nonsensical. No one from from Luther to Aquinas to Scotus to Augustine to Plato would recognize it. Aristotle's definition of "liberty" as "the freedom to pursue virtue" presupposes a shared definition of the latter term.
A society's law is only procedural because it is a codified expression of the members' shared moral order. So why is our "rule of law" breaking down today? Because Locke and Mill and Nietzsche destroyed our "shared moral order", and we're now reaping the whirlwind.
This is why appeals to "the rule of law" won't work against today's liberals. Just like appeals to "religious liberty" or "academic freedom" won't. What is any of that if it results in evil outcomes? (Which to them, it does.) We need a competing definition of "good" and a willingness to use electoral power to enforce it. That's what post-liberalism looks like. I don't like it either (I'd prefer a broadly tolerant society built on Judeo-Christian norms) but that's where we are.
I also don't see how it is fair to hold a former president to different standards with things such as the Espionage Act. Not only have they not prosecuted many senior official in the past in possession of classified intelligence the president is in a different boat. It can be said that the PRA does indeed apply here as it is the only specific law that covers the records of former presidents. The EA is general law and was never intended to be used against a former president who had copies of his own records. So the DOJ's strongest case is really just an ownership dispute that could have and should have been argued in civil court. There is absolutely zero legal precedent here.
Very well said, Professor. I only hope that those with a biblical worldview are paying attention.
Are these Get Trump lawyers members of the 65 Project lawyers group that destroys lawyers reputations in their communities and firms, if they represent President Trump? This is vile.
If after the Democrats win the general, this all goes away, we'll have the proof we want as to what exactly was going on here.
Past this, the problem I see is that no one really has to Prove anything in today's courts.
They make the law up as they go along, using phrases like 'inciting violence' and ignoring the precedent, adding 'unlawfully ' or ' falsely' to bias the juries, applying law that is being used for the first time for this purpose, and selectively picking the laws that apply while ignoring others that hurt their case.
I think it is a forgone conclusion that In Georgia and DC Trump will be found guilty of something, and only after a delay of long enough to assure a Democrat win in the general, will he successfully appeal and be exonerated.
Dear Dr. Dershowitz. Please would you help us or recommend a pro bono family lawyer here in South Florida who would help. My daughter literally escaped from a violent alcoholic husband who threatened her with his gun in front of my little grandchildren. She is divorcing him but does not have money for a lawyer . Her future ex hired a lawyer who is threatening to get 50/50 custody of these precious babies 5 and 3 who he has repeatedly abused and molested. Please will you help us? Thank you: m75goggin@gmail.com
(We've gone to legal aide and they just give legal advice)
I won't venture a guess as to the motives of the prosecutors, but Trump's lead over Republican rivals in public opinion polls has increased after each indictment was announced, which I daresay gladdens the hearts of Democratic pols and strategists, as there's good reason to assume Trump cannot win the next general election.