The Liberal Crusade to Eliminate Justice

One of the strongest arguments that shows how much Hillary hates women is her effort to ensure that a man who raped a 12-year-old girl got off with a one-year sentence.

But liberals say Hillary was just doing what she was supposed to do: use any legal trickery to ensure that the guilty walk.

This is the corrupted vision of what a fair trial is.  It is what liberals have been foisting on America since the Warren Court made up rights to protect criminals.

A fair trial is one where the innocent are found innocent and the guilty are found guilty.  But to liberals, a "fair" trial is one where the rules are followed irrespective of whether or not justice is served.

Clearly, police beating confessions out of defendants or breaking into houses without a warrant are not acceptable policies, but the restrictions put on the justice system by the über-liberal Warren Court go far beyond that by excluding evidence based on clerical errors.

Liberals show their true colors by constantly worrying about unjust convictions and being quite happy with unjust acquittals.  We know that unjust acquittals happen because we know that critical evidence is often excluded for purely frivolous reasons.  For example, a judge issues a search warrant, and the clerk accidentally puts the wrong date on the search warrant.  All the evidence found in the search is excluded because of that clerical error.

By supporting the exclusion of physical evidence, liberals show that they support defense lawyers who are eager to use any trick to eliminate evidence that damages their clients' case, no matter how guilty their clients are revealed to be by that evidence.

Defense attorneys are of course enamored of the "following the rules" philosophy since it helps them sleep at night in their mansions funded by the filthy lucre obtained by ensuring that child rapists, drug dealers, murders, and rapists are released to prey on future victims.  They reason they follow the rules is so that the outcome, whatever it may be, is okay.

Clearly, defense attorneys, a source of lots of money for liberal candidates, have a selfish reason to support making it hard to convict criminals, but what's odd is that liberals in general are so much more concerned about criminals than about victims.

It may be due to the fact that when they were younger, liberals tended to break the law and use illegal drugs that made them think of the police and the justice system as their enemy.  But whatever the cause, it's clear that for modern liberals, what matters most is making it hard to convict most criminals.

Part of this may be due to the racism that permeates modern American liberalism.  The simple reality is that the majority of criminals whom liberals want to free prey only on blacks and are no threat to the liberal elites in their suburban homes or gated communities.

Hence, when liberals talk about the over-incarceration of blacks, they know that freeing those blacks to prey on other blacks won't increase the odds of themselves getting mugged.

Liberals defend their position by proclaiming that anyone who wants justice actually wants to throw out the whole idea of justice and eliminate defense attorneys.

Contrary to liberal claims, there is a valuable role for defense attorneys to play.

First, in cases where the attorney doesn't know that his client is guilty – which wasn't the case for Hillary, who admitted her client's guilt – a strong defense is a perfectly moral thing to do.  Fighting to exclude coerced confessions or the results of cops just randomly breaking into houses is an honorable thing, as is ensuring that clients get a fair sentence for their crimes – not 20 years for a white offender and 60 years for a black offender.

What is intrinsically immoral is the deliberate effort to exclude physical evidence based on technicalities.  That's wrong because it is directly designed to ensure that the trial be unjust.  Because liberals are apparently unaware that victims are people, too, they think that when a guilty man is acquitted, the trial was "fair," even though it wasn't fair for his victims, past or future.

But of course, if defense attorneys sought justice, not freeing clients regardless of their guilt, they wouldn't make anywhere near as much money.  Who's going to pay for a moral lawyer when he can get a shyster?

Point out to your friends that liberals hate justice and love rules that ensure that criminals can in fact get away with murder.

Hillary has demonstrated that what she cares about is rules, not justice, and that she'll do anything she can to get what she wants, which includes ensuring that a man who raped a 12-year-old girl be able to do it again in one year.

That sort of moral defect is far greater than anything Trump has been accused of.  Trump is far from perfect, but Hillary is a moral abomination.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

One of the strongest arguments that shows how much Hillary hates women is her effort to ensure that a man who raped a 12-year-old girl got off with a one-year sentence.

But liberals say Hillary was just doing what she was supposed to do: use any legal trickery to ensure that the guilty walk.

This is the corrupted vision of what a fair trial is.  It is what liberals have been foisting on America since the Warren Court made up rights to protect criminals.

A fair trial is one where the innocent are found innocent and the guilty are found guilty.  But to liberals, a "fair" trial is one where the rules are followed irrespective of whether or not justice is served.

Clearly, police beating confessions out of defendants or breaking into houses without a warrant are not acceptable policies, but the restrictions put on the justice system by the über-liberal Warren Court go far beyond that by excluding evidence based on clerical errors.

Liberals show their true colors by constantly worrying about unjust convictions and being quite happy with unjust acquittals.  We know that unjust acquittals happen because we know that critical evidence is often excluded for purely frivolous reasons.  For example, a judge issues a search warrant, and the clerk accidentally puts the wrong date on the search warrant.  All the evidence found in the search is excluded because of that clerical error.

By supporting the exclusion of physical evidence, liberals show that they support defense lawyers who are eager to use any trick to eliminate evidence that damages their clients' case, no matter how guilty their clients are revealed to be by that evidence.

Defense attorneys are of course enamored of the "following the rules" philosophy since it helps them sleep at night in their mansions funded by the filthy lucre obtained by ensuring that child rapists, drug dealers, murders, and rapists are released to prey on future victims.  They reason they follow the rules is so that the outcome, whatever it may be, is okay.

Clearly, defense attorneys, a source of lots of money for liberal candidates, have a selfish reason to support making it hard to convict criminals, but what's odd is that liberals in general are so much more concerned about criminals than about victims.

It may be due to the fact that when they were younger, liberals tended to break the law and use illegal drugs that made them think of the police and the justice system as their enemy.  But whatever the cause, it's clear that for modern liberals, what matters most is making it hard to convict most criminals.

Part of this may be due to the racism that permeates modern American liberalism.  The simple reality is that the majority of criminals whom liberals want to free prey only on blacks and are no threat to the liberal elites in their suburban homes or gated communities.

Hence, when liberals talk about the over-incarceration of blacks, they know that freeing those blacks to prey on other blacks won't increase the odds of themselves getting mugged.

Liberals defend their position by proclaiming that anyone who wants justice actually wants to throw out the whole idea of justice and eliminate defense attorneys.

Contrary to liberal claims, there is a valuable role for defense attorneys to play.

First, in cases where the attorney doesn't know that his client is guilty – which wasn't the case for Hillary, who admitted her client's guilt – a strong defense is a perfectly moral thing to do.  Fighting to exclude coerced confessions or the results of cops just randomly breaking into houses is an honorable thing, as is ensuring that clients get a fair sentence for their crimes – not 20 years for a white offender and 60 years for a black offender.

What is intrinsically immoral is the deliberate effort to exclude physical evidence based on technicalities.  That's wrong because it is directly designed to ensure that the trial be unjust.  Because liberals are apparently unaware that victims are people, too, they think that when a guilty man is acquitted, the trial was "fair," even though it wasn't fair for his victims, past or future.

But of course, if defense attorneys sought justice, not freeing clients regardless of their guilt, they wouldn't make anywhere near as much money.  Who's going to pay for a moral lawyer when he can get a shyster?

Point out to your friends that liberals hate justice and love rules that ensure that criminals can in fact get away with murder.

Hillary has demonstrated that what she cares about is rules, not justice, and that she'll do anything she can to get what she wants, which includes ensuring that a man who raped a 12-year-old girl be able to do it again in one year.

That sort of moral defect is far greater than anything Trump has been accused of.  Trump is far from perfect, but Hillary is a moral abomination.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.