– #Sticky Note on Donald Trump’s Pursuit of Happiness –
Statutory interpretation is the Cinderella of legal scholarship. Once scorned and neglected, confined to the kitchen, it now dances in the ballroom. (William N. Eskridge Jr, Dynamic Statutory Interpretation)
The US Supreme Court's mindblowing legal Finesse of segregating Donald Trump's former Incumbency into opposite Abstracta (non-/official) alongside precipitating the Then-President's Responsibility for the Capitol Attack of any Act of Wrong-Doing, reminisces of Apex Banks' Bailouts in terms of the State's Rescue Parachute serving a Crisp Brand's fresh Start-Up, providing decent Capital Funding to systemic Risk remaining inherent, while Bad Assets are being off-shored to Nowhere.
Now what?!
Legal philosophy in its long career has found a score of ways to ask whether judges are themselves consumers of the law. Does a judge assume any political responsibility of an ethical nature when he enforces in immoral private law (i.e., a contract) or an inhumane public law (i.e., a statute)? If you does, has he a "legal" right to refuse enforcement? ... The proposition that judges too may be consumers of the law has immediate practical applications. ... The majority have neglected the interest of the judge as consumer of the law while the minority have concentrated on his interest to the exclusion of everyone else's. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Legal Philosophy and Judicial Consumers of Law)
The threat does not come from overseas or from any foreign source – would that, it did; we could easily repel it. It comes from within our own borders and from certain of our own judges, who are widely echoed by various lawyers, professors in journalists. Is the threat of the "ink eradicator" philosophy. ... What is the "ink eradicator" philosophy and what does it propose to accomplish? It's immediate objective is simple to state. It aims to erase the words of the First Amendment from the parchment of our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable Assembly and – by implication – freedom of association. The "ink eradicators" have long since served notice that they disapprove of the whole notion of a written Bill of Rights and would prefer to eliminate the entire document. ... They insist that all words are too imprecise to be taken for what they say, that every affirmative may just as well be a negative and every negative an affirmative, and that only the naive among us will permit a categorical prohibition to stand in the way of what seems expedient at any given moment. Words have so little meaning in their view that one wonders how they can use words to tell us so. ... What do the "ink eradicators" say about the First Amendment? The amendment itself is couched in what the rest of us might consider rather direct terms. It provides that "Congress shall make no law" on certain subjects that the Founding Fathers considered sacred and indispensable to human dignity. Although the Amendment says precisely that "Congress shall make no law" in these fields, the "ink eradicators" claim that it means something quite different. They claim that when it says "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no 'unreasonable' law". So far, so ominous. But the next question is: What is "unreasonable" law? They have a quick answer: A law, they insist, is "unreasonable only, if a majority of the judges decide it is." Suppose, then, the Congress proceeds to flout the First Amendment and abridge our freedom of religion or speech or press, how are the judges to determine whether the law is reasonable or unreasonable? This, they reply, is easy: The law "must be reasonable or Congress would not have enacted it. It would be an assault to the members of Congress, for whom all patriotic Americans feel a reverence bordering on idolatry, were the judges to take the first amendment literally and nullify such a law." (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – The Threat of Ink Eradication)
What use did the German judges Catholic or non-catholic make of natural law? What did they do with natural law when they were confronted with a cruel legislation of the Hitler regime? A German expert reports: "Two groups deserve the place of honor among those who made their scholarship subservient to the Nazi ends: the biologists and the jurists ... The jurists ... spared no effort in molding the abstruse ideas of the new rulers into clear-cut articles of law and directives and in defending the legality of the measures taken." Another German expert says: "The whole profession is to be blamed for a high degree of guilt and for having brought great disaster upon itself and the German people." A third expert writes: "They acted as 'yes-men'. Instead of leading in the field of at least intellectual resistance to a criminal system, they readily joined it as followers and in quite a few instances even as activists. In all the prolific literature of the German Resistance, little if anything can be read about the members of the legal profession. Most, if not all, German jurists of the Hitler period were far from becoming martyrs in the defense of justice. Quite a few of them acted as hangman's assistance in the extermination of justice. ..." (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Judicial Subservience: Justice’s Downfall in Nazi-Germany in – a case in point)
Frame of Reference[1]
Ink Eradicators of The US Constitution
Repubs vs Democs | A Nation Going Paranoid
An American Idiot’s Helter Skelter!
When Trump said: "We're going to the Capitol!"
A Counterfeit World: Not only Trump’s
TrumPutinian Tango & Th‘ Russian Mafia!
Withstanding Êpitomes of Destrûctiveness!
[1] 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov) ––– related as follows: The Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org) ––– The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org) ––– The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Is a Victory for Donald Trump | The New Yorker ––– The Supreme Court’s Stunning Gift to Trump - POLITICO ––– How Supreme Court’s immunity ruling ‘transforms’ US presidency | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera
Scotus' & Croesus' Love Divine!