A  DISMAL FAILURE – A SHORT ITEM BUT MUST BE SAID

Among all the magnificent buildings in our nation’s capital of Washington D.C., there is one that stands out not only for its past history but for it being the center of our present day political unrest. It is, of course, the Capitol.Close by, only a block away, is yet another of those buildings which, likewise, stands out not only for its past history but also as it is central to not just the political unrest but also for its place in the state of unrest and chaos in the arena of  law. It is the location of the United States Supreme Court. SCOTUS, if you will, and it is the linchpin of chaos the likes of which we have not seen in the history of jurisprudence. Of late, the conduct surrounding SCOTUS has been, shall we say, less than reputable and without consequence, has bordered on the criminal. At least, that is the opinion of legal scholars – moderates, centrist and conservative alike – across the board.

Decisions such as Citizens United, Shelby County vs Holder and most recently Dobbs vs Jackson Womens Health all point to what can only be described as the politicizing  of the Court. In Shelby County, the Chief Justice stated that he felt there was no more need to monitor voting procedures in the states. Then looked what happened. Immediately numerous states began a frightening process of making voting considerably more difficult and nearly impossible for many.n We won’t even delve in to the crushing of precedent for the Dobbs decision or the frightening implications of the ruling on presidential immunity which clearly showed a bias for the petitioner. But whatever  the implications of  SCOTUS may be, it is not just at that level that we find decisions and rulings that not only call in to question the fate of the Rule of Law but also the role of the court system in the political agenda of a candidate or a party.

Case in point. In Florida, in a case in  Federal District, the judge there ruled clearly in favor of the defendant in a case involving stolen classified documents, pictures of which were available all over the internet. The judge was soundly overruled by the Eleventh Circuit court. However, in a like wise questionable ruling, that same District court judge dismissed the case, citing that the Special Counsel / prosecutor was improperly hired and compensated. A ruling so egregious, it will no doubt be overruled by the Eleventh Circuit and they may, in fact, move to dismiss the judge from the case, as many legal scholars are proposing as appropriate.

On  lower court, one has to marvel at the enormous number of delays granted for at best, weak reasons, and at worst, rulings which demonstrate a notable bias in favor of a singular defendant. Take for example the case in  the criminal fraud case in New York where the defendant was convicted of thirty-four counts of fraud in the spring of 2024 and the judge set the sentencing date for July 11.  After filings and briefs, etc filed by the defendant, the judge moved the sentencing to November, after the election. One has to wonder about the rationale for that.

In an unrelated case in Arizona, eighteen people were indicted on charges stemming from a conspiracy to defraud the government and the voters in a scheme of fake electors  after the 2020 election. Clearly this is an act of treason. For some unknown reason, the judge in that case has moved the trial date to 2026, a full six years after the offending conspiracy and two years after the formal indictment. Clearly, a ruling which benefits the defendants / election deniers.

There used to be a rule somewhere in those law libraries that took note of the  defendant being entitled to speedy trial. So much for that, one supposes. However, one must ask the question. Is the court calendar overruled by the political calendar ?  There can be no doubt that the courts, fairly much from the top down, are significantly politicized and its decisions are becoming less and less about legal precedent and more about catering to the pressures from outside the forces of law . For example the notoriety and public status of the defendant appears, in a number of cases, to hold more sway on rulings than the actual point of law.

One could go on with examples of both sides of the proverbial coin but nonetheless, that one side is with no question, falling quickly in to the abyss of politics and rule by ideology rather than by the rule of law. The implications for this radical shift are far reaching and frightening. Should the trend continue, we shall no doubt see a complete prostituting of SCOTUS, as well as the courts throughout the  judicial system.

A this point, one then has to ask – is there a way to turn this all around ?  Possibly. It all comes down to the upcoming election if we are to see any reform movement at all . The reasoning here being that from start to finish, any movement toward reform of the system, particularly SCOTUS, can and must come from congress, specifically from the senate. The interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of powers may interfere with some effort at judicial reform at the SCOTUS level but, nonetheless, the effort must be made. 

Certain reform measures should be on the agenda, not the least of which would be the expansion of the court to mirror the federal district court system. A second and equally pressing measure should be the development and enacting of a code judicial ethics rule, similar to that which applies to all judges on lower courts but it must be clearly  enforceable. A third measure should be the enacting of term limits. Lifetime appointments must cease to exist. It all seems to be quite complicated but these reforms must be enacted in order to restore a level of confidence in the courts that has been seriously damaged during this period of politicization plaguing SCOTUS and,  in the opinion of many legal scholars,  the entire federal court system. To quote from the far past, in his Satires, Juvenal asks the question – Sed quid custodiat ipsos custodes – But who is to guard the guards themselves.