Briefly Noted: Why Do We Bother With Trials?

I ask that in light of the recent statements by BLM "activist" Maya Echols:

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced just know that all hell is going to break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire.”

NEW – Maya Echols, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, threatened that cities will be “on fire” if Derek Chauvin is not convicted for the death of George Floyd.pic.twitter.com/r4xk3kuVW2

And what Liberals are defending this business of holding jury trials, rule of law, and all that jazz? 

What Comes After Rule Of Law?

This morning at American Thinker James DeLong, a retired lawyer, reflects on his former profession in a thoughtful article:

The Honor of the Legal Profession

I feel somehow obliged to say that DeLong's title isn't intended to be facetious, and I really do highly recommend the whole article.

I've been saying since the SCOTUS' self-disgracing on Friday that the Court has delegitimized itself--indeed, that rule of law and even the republic are pretty well finished. DeLong's reflections on the legal profession run along those lines: How did things come to this pass?

DeLong begins by (mis)quoting "a familiar Latin aphorism": Inter arma enim silent leges. More or less: 'In times of war the laws fall silent.' He then suggests that the reverse is also true: "If law falls silent, arms will decide." In a sense it amounts to a chicken/egg type thing. Of course, when men resort to arms the law falls silent, but is it not at times the case that the laws first fall silent and only then do men resort to arms?

Recommended Read 8/13/20

We've read a lot about "Brady material" in the Flynn case. Here's an article about a Texas murder case. Fascinating read. It's four years old:

How Michael Morton’s Wrongful Conviction Has Brought Others Justice

Trump Wins While Appeals Continue

The big breaking news is at The Hill: Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce 'Remain in Mexico' policy. Here's the key:

The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that the Trump administration may enforce a policy that requires asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico. 

The justices will allow the “Remain in Mexico” policy to continue while the administration appeals a lower court ruling which deemed the program illegal and ordered a suspension that was scheduled to take effect tomorrow. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only justice to publicly dissent from the decision to allow the policy to continue. 

... 

A federal district court in California last April ruled that the policy violates U.S. immigration law and contravenes international human rights norms. The court ordered the administration to stop the practice along the entire U.S. border. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s legal ruling, but the appellate court narrowed the injunction to apply to California and Arizona, the two border states under its jurisdiction.  

The injunction, that was scheduled to take effect tomorrow, would have affected those two states, but would not have applied to New Mexico or Texas.

Interestingly, I read this within a minute or two of making this comment on another thread:

The state of the judicial branch is a huge problem for our constitutional order that has finally reached critical mass--a real threat to our body politic. 

Read Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch--this is basically it: 

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

The only court established by the ratification of the Constitution was the SCOTUS. I suspect the system of "inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" has grown far beyond what the Founders ever imagined. It's an unwieldy structure in which justice is routinely delayed and denied by expense and overload. And there is no real way to impose discipline on the inferior courts in a truly effective way--as we're seeing now.

With this action, the SCOTUS is taking the one step it can take, but the situation is a bit like the coronavirus. The SCOTUS is the ICU for the Constitution, and the actions of liberal judges are swamping and overloading the SCOTUS with acts that require remedial action that shouldn't be occupying their time and keeping them from attending to legitimate matters.

Recommended Reads For Presidents Day: The Use Of Prosecutors

Two recommended reads that provide additional insights into the way the office of prosecutor fits into the progressive scheme for societal and political transformation. The two, of course, go hand in hand.

First, Andrew McCarthy weighs in: