Peaceful and productive human societies depend on the maintenance of judicial principles that are consistent and impartial.
During the 12th-century reign of Henry II, the English king began to establish a more trustworthy system of legal decision-making. The king’s judges were asked to consider verdicts that had been reached in similar cases.
Throughout the following centuries, legal decision-making was based on tradition and custom. This unified system of justice became known as English common law.
The legal principle, commonly known as “stare decisis,” discouraged dishonest plaintiffs from seeking unprecedented settlements for specious allegations against parties whom they disliked or sensed they could take advantage of.
The adoption of English common law in America made the United States particularly attractive to free, hardworking people who sought to engage in honest commerce, acquire capital, remain secure in their persons, protect their property and reputations, participate in public affairs, practice their religion, and live well-ordered lives.
Transforming American Justice
Things don’t always change for the better. Over several generations, Marxist intellectuals have been transforming the American justice system. They regard a commitment to neutrality as a way of disguising “colonialist” and “patriarchal” power structures. Since the 1980s, this has led to fierce partisan disputes over the nomination of judges and serious doubts about impartiality in American courts.Marxism is a conflict-oriented ideology, and Marxists view liberal conceptions of freedom, democracy, and justice as instruments of “oppression.” The American left defines pro-American descendants of European colonists as “oppressors.” More recently, this status has expanded to include African American conservatives, legal Hispanic immigrants, election fraud protesters, concerned parents, practicing Catholics, Jews, or anyone else President Joe Biden chooses to call a “MAGA extremist.”
Justice Must Be Done and Seen to Be Done
Legal scholars once insisted that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.” Everyone should be able to expect a fair trial that’s accurately covered by public news organizations.But unbiased judges and honest reporters are in short supply. While Republican 2024 presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump is facing unprecedented indictments, journalists are still insisting that American justice is fair and impartial.
The left’s recourse to “lawfare” requires judges and journalists to conceal the truth rather than expose it. Legacy news organizations say there’s no evidence of the “weaponization of justice” or a “two-tiered” legal system. But, as specious allegations come before American courts, folks can’t help noticing that the so-called oppressed usually win.
For example, in 2019, American advice columnist E. Jean Carroll suddenly accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. President Trump vigorously denied the allegations, but Ms. Carroll was permitted to sue him for defamation and battery.
One could have guessed the outcome of this case before it began. The left views President Trump as an arch-oppressor, and Ms. Carroll was seen as an “oppressed” victim.
In May 2023, a New York jury found the former president liable for defamation and sexual abuse and awarded Ms. Carroll $5 million in damages. In January, President Trump was found liable in a second defamation suit, and Ms. Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million. The second award was unprecedented.
First, there were no witnesses and no surveillance video of the attack, which was alleged to have occurred in a downtown New York department store.
The plaintiff came forward with her story while promoting a book titled “What Do We Need Men For?”, which featured a list headed “The Most Hideous Men of My Life.” The dress she claimed to be wearing during the alleged attack wasn’t for sale in the year she initially claimed the event occurred. Despite her public reputation for being very open about sexual matters, she didn’t accuse President Trump until some 30 years after the alleged encounter.
Her entire story was very similar to a 2012 “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” episode titled “Theatre and Tricks,” in which an individual talks about a rape fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman. In a November 1993 edition of Elle, before the alleged abuse, Ms. Carroll had made a joke associating sex with Bergdorf Goodman.
Ms. Carroll’s case was financially backed by anti-Trump Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman. One of her lawyers is Roberta Kaplan, who is married to a Democratic Party activist. In fact, her lawsuit was only able to proceed after New York Democrats created a 2022 “Adult Survivors Act,” which allowed judges to overlook the usual statute of limitations for such charges.
Judgments in cases that are tried in partisan-charged venues such as New York City or Washington have almost become forgone conclusions.
A steep decline in common law principles won’t bode well for the future of the American Republic. Who would have thought that in 2024, American citizens would be witnessing a partisan special prosecutor seeking the U.S. Supreme Court’s permission to put the opposing party’s presidential candidate on trial months before a presidential election?
