Calling Court Houses “Justice Centers” Gives a False Impression of What Goes on There

It used to be that a court house was just a court house. The term court house identified the building where the county or Federal courts were to be found. Now they are called “Justice Centers.” What does that imply? That this is where “Justice” occurs? What occurs in the court house is supposed to be justice, for sure. But is it? Was it ever?

Were black people given justice in the county court houses of the Southern states before the civil rights movement that began with President Eisenhower signing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote? Did any court house in any court in America every render a ruling against suppression of black voting rights before that act was signed into law? Did justice occur in the court house where the murderers of 14-year old Emmett Till were acquitted in the face of over-whelming evidence of their guilt? No, but are Justice Centers today rendering justice more consistently than Southern courts during the Jim Crow era? Perhaps sometimes, but not often enough to justify calling their office buildings “Justice Centers.”

Did Atticus Finch finally bring justice to a Southern court house? Yes, but only in Lee Harper’s fictional account.

Did justice occur in the “Justice Center” when Obama-appointed Federal District Judge Amit P. Mehta issued his ruling yesterday that President Trump and his former associates and employees must turn over their personal financial records to the House Democrats so they could go on a fishing expedition to manufacture evidence for impeachment? No, but Federal Court houses are not called Justice Centers, they’re called Federal Judicial Centers. All you need for a Judicial Center is a judge, just or not.

The truth is that what occurs in a Justice Center is a Judgment, ruling or verdict of some sort. It may or may not constitute justice. These days, when judges are trying to be legislators and legislators are tying to be judges, there is not a lot of justice going on anywhere.

About those subpoenas, don’t you find that ruling a bit out of kilter? Would you think it just if all your personal financial records covering decades in the past were subpoenaed without any allegation of a crime by somebody close enough to you so that your personal financial records might contain some relevant evidence of that crime? That how it is supposed to work, I mean that’s the only way it can be called justice.

Is it just to subpoena Trump’s financial records with no high crime of misdemeanor having been charged?  Is it justice to demand decades old records from before he ever ran for president only to serve the hopes and dreams of political opponents looking for dirt to tarnish him and try to drive him from office?

Remember, Trump has already given Mueller all of his White House records and nothing bad was found. Trump could have properly claimed executive privilege but he never did. Now he is, and an Obama Judge thinks his political opponents should be able to give him an anal exam going back decades not because there is any reason to suspect wrongdoing but just because they hate him and want to cause him as much harm as they can.

I’m reminded of when Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy, “At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?”  Has Congressmen Nadler any sense of decency? Has Nancy Pelosi? She now charged Trump of a “cover up.” A cover up of what? She doesn’t say. She doesn’t know of just what he would need to cover up. Mueller spent 2 years, $25 million, 2,000 subpoenas, hundreds of thousand interrogations, and found nothing.

This is certainly not justice. This is tyranny.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

%d bloggers like this: