Liberal legal authorities are on a roll lately, and there seems to be a theme to their madness: Motivation. Intent. Bias.
A recent Supreme Court ruling, supported by all the progressive judges plus (as usual) Judge Anthony Kennedy, overturned a very long-standing principle of jurisprudence–a centuries old principle–thus opening a can of worms so large that even Kong would be hard pressed to defeat its denizens.
New trials can now be granted if lawyers can induce jurors to claim that any juror evidenced “racial bias” during deliberations. (Actually, in this case, there was no “racial” bias, unless the allegedly biased statement was made by a black person, given that the accused was of Mexican descent, an ethnic category, not a racial category.)
So now what other types of bias attributed to jurors will be questioned after the fact, in an attempt to overturn decisions? Sexism? Islamophobia? Homophobia? See the problem?
In dissent, Judge Alito wrote:
Today, with the admirable intention of providing justice for one criminal defendant, the court not only pries open the door; it rules that respecting the privacy of the jury room, as our legal system has done for centuries, violates the Constitution. [emphasis added to quotes]
So, as with many other aspects of our society, political correctness and reticence will henceforth infect jury deliberations. Free speech will no longer be free on jury panels. Jurors will be subject to having their words interpreted (or misinterpreted) by fellow jurors, perhaps those searching for microaggressions in a quest to achieve their own preferred outcome. Will jurors speak freely with that specter hanging over their heads?
What about jurors who themselves exhibit racial bias by falsely accusing others of bias? What about those who falsely attribute bias to their fellow jurors? To what sort of post-trial investigations and tribunals will jurors be subjected?
Will offending jurors be publicly named and accused of bias? Will they be subjected to lawsuits that attempt to recover the cost to taxpayers of the first trial that resulted in a “do over” because of formerly secret words? How about defendants’ legal fees? Who would want to serve on a jury now?
Along these same lines, President Donald J. Trump’s revised travel ban, designed to protect our country from potential terrorists who can’t be sufficiently vetted in certain countries, is being challenged by the state of Washington’s attorney general:
[T]he President’s new order reinstates several of the same provisions and has the same illegal motivations as the original.
Do you see what the progressive attorney general is doing? He intends to challenge President Trump’s order based upon Trump’s presumed motivations, not upon the law. In addition, he intends to challenge the order on constitutional grounds, as illegal religious discrimination. But President Trump has gone to great lengths to remove from the order any potential impact upon a person who has constitutional rights in the USA.
Persons in other countries have no constitutional right to travel here. They have no constitutional right to not be discriminated against when a president makes decisions about the national security of our country. Only U.S. citizens and people subject to our jurisdiction (e.g., being already on our soil) have constitutional rights. Foreign citizens have no rights under our Constitution.
When the AG of WA talks about “illegal motivations,” he’s signaling that he intends to argue that during the campaign, now-President Trump mentioned a “Muslim ban.” From that so-called evidence of “illegal motivations,” the state of Washington intends to try to second guess the intent of the President and apply their conclusions to his executive order!
Where will it end? Henceforth, will every action taken by the President be subjected to second-guessing about his assumed motivations? If so, who will be the “decider?” If the answer is the Courts, that stands our entire system of government on its head.
The President of the United States is the decider on issues of national security. This is very clear under the Constitution. He is also the Commander in Chief. Will every military decision also be subject to a determination of Trump’s potentially “illegal motivations” by courts?
Let’s talk about illegal motivations in the context of former-president Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential decisions.
When Obama said that “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” did he signal that any attorney general across the Republic could challenge Obama when he made decisions concerning who would be admitted as refugees and who would not? An overwhelming number of the refugees who came to the USA during Obama’s term were Muslim, not Christian, despite that Christians are persecuted in many countries of the Muslim world. Was this evidence of “illegal motivations” on Obama’s part?
What potentially illegal motivation did Obama have when he ordered his administration to break long-standing precedent and allow raw signals intelligence to be shared across all 17 intelligence agencies? This act allowed illegal leaks of classified information to the media and deliberately (?) obfuscated the source of those leaks, illegally and unconstitutionally smearing the reputations of innocent U.S. citizens.
Will the attorney general of Washington state care to investigate the illegal motivations of the former president?