When prosecutors, jurists get political, justice is no longer priority

Justice now is nothing more than a political tool, bent and whittled to fit into a perceived "fairness" void

When prosecutors, jurists get political, 

justice is no longer priority

We have entered a new era of justice. It has, like so many other concepts in America, been redefined to encompass more than law—justice now means what common culture considers “fair.” The difference between the two? One is carefully deliberated statutory law standing on a Constitutional base; the other is a feel-good cause validated by emotion, no logic required.

Witness this last week where both Loretta Lynch, attorney general for the United States, and Marilyn Mosby, Maryland state’s attorney, proved their full membership in the church of appeasement. And whom are they placating? Death cults, special interests and mobs, otherwise known as modern culture (okay, and anti-culture when you add in sharia proponents).

Lynch, in Orlando addressing the massacre of 49 individuals by a muslim adherent (disregarding his own possible gay leanings, self-hate), went far beyond the boundaries of her position as the steward of law and order. Her job is to weigh the actions of an individual as to whether they constituted breaking the law, it is not to preach on the status of love in our society:

“We stand with you to say that the good in the world far outweighs the evil… and that our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love…”

Attempting to quell anger or despair by making such a statement was outside the scope of her job to enforce the law, which was broken (murder being an obvious illegal act).

In the same vein, after last year’s death of Freddie Gray during the Baltimore riots, Mosby’s pledging to serve a one-sided view of ‘justice’ (that of the #blacklivesmatter crowd) was inappropriate and, in the long run, has proven to be a monumental waste of court time and state money—tax money. In an attempt to placate the mobs that could erupt at any time, Mosby charged six of Baltimore’s finest with causing Gray’s death. Thus far, three of the cases have come to naught as the officers were acquitted or charges dropped. How much more leeway should be afforded to this pandering, incompetent prosecutor before she is sidelined?

In both instances, there is no motivation to advance lawful justice, but promote a populist ideal of social justice that serves small special populations from LGBT to vociferous, violent street scrappers.

But the incoherent concept of social justice doesn’t stop at the prosecutors’ table inside the bar, it is now flagrantly enforced from the bench.

However one views the loss of Justice Scalia from the Supreme Court, the current make-up of SCOTUS has been a stand-off until now. Four liberal jurists, three staunchly conservative Constitutionalists and one windblown justice sit head-to-head in considering cases that are often political in nature.

Two opinions rendered last week and one today testify to how political leanings readily influence the final decisions of self-appointed deliverers from society’s inherent unfairness. The feeling that discrimination is the major rationale behind any business, educational or health-related policy has become the standard for dispensing justice. The problem is that it is the secondary and new definition of justice that is being served.

United States v. Texas was deadlocked at four-four, and the appellate court decision was left standing that the president’s immigration policy cannot override law. Social justice didn’t triumph over constitutionally instituted law. But in the affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, SCOTUS ruled in favor of using race as a factor for admission to the college. Social justice prevailed.

The Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, regarding the application of a Texas law that “challenged a provision that requires abortion facilities to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers, and a provision that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in the event a woman must seek hospital care due to post-abortion complications,” was decided Monday, June 27, 2016.

From SCOTUSblog:

“Issue: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.” (emphasis mine)

The last statement within the issue is, in itself, biased. It assumes that there was no purpose within the Texas law to promote the health of the woman. Yet, when you read the argument of the National Physician’s Alliance (NPA), which “contends that abortion involves minimum complications—for example, the risk of death during childbirth is fourteen times the risk of death during an abortion,” it is evident that their interest is solely to provide abortions, the physician’s relationship with the facility notwithstanding. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon, or an ob-gyn for that matter, to understand that when a doctor has admitting privileges at a facility they are known and fully vetted by that hospital or clinic. The possibility of an unqualified individual providing the service is then unlikely, preserving the wellbeing of the patient. This promotes health and is certainly in the interest of both the State and the patient, which, one would assume, qualifies as a valid interest.

Certainly, this is only one of the arguments for the Texas law that insists on beneficial standards being met before a life-ending (for the child) procedure is carried out. The opinion tendered today indicates SCOTUS’ willingness to make abortion easy in that they were more concerned with quick availability of possible butchery (recall the Philadelphia case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell just three years ago) than making certain a woman has considered all options before killing her child.

The fact is, if individuals actually planned becoming a parent before they gave in to emotion, they wouldn’t subject themselves to a traumatic invasive procedure that social justice says is fine but conscience debates. Because, after all, when does a child become “viable?”

Justice now is nothing more than a political tool, bent and whittled to fit into a perceived “fairness” void. The question then becomes, fair for whom? Those who just want to have fun? Those who want others to succumb to their personal foibles or ideology? Or those innocents who are murdered (whether by gunfire, beheading or abortion) in someone’s pursuit of the foregoing?