Sheriff Joe: Trump strikes a blow for the rule of law

Okay.  Let's get the dirty truth right out front.  I am sick of the courts ignoring the Constitution in order to enhance their own power.  Sometimes the language of the Constitution is so direct and unambiguous that no exceptions can be tolerated.  I present to you as Exhibit A two clauses of the U.S. Constitution, with two important phrases in bold type

Article III, Section 2.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.  Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses.

There are various precedents allowing judges to deny a jury trial in certain situations, including when the penalty does not exceed six months' imprisonment.  Now, old Jimmy Madison was one smart dude.  So were the signers and ratifiers of the Constitution.  If they had meant to create an exception to what is arguably the most important right safeguarded by the Constitution, does anyone doubt that they would have done so?

District Court Judge Susan Bolton (a Clinton appointee) denied Sheriff Joe a trial by jury.  Apparently, his own attorney conceded that the judge was within her rights to do so.  Huh?  Memo to Joe's lawyer: Please don't represent me ever.

Greater legal minds than mine all concur that the SCOTUS has affirmed this principle.  Heck, I don't even have a law degree, let alone one from Harvard and Yale, which masquerade as law schools.  But I'll put up my pitiful reliance on the plain meaning of words against their sophistry in a national referendum.  Once judges are allowed to flout the guarantee of trial by jury, no freedom we think we have is safe from judicial tyranny.  Even poor, uneducated voters should see the threat to their own safety.

The Constitution is often described as a document of checks and balances.  The various branches check each other in many ways.  The president is the ultimate check on judicial tyranny by virtue of his unrestricted power of pardon.  Suddenly, the left finds that to somehow flout the rule of law.  Oh, really?  Does it flout the rule of law to insist that presidents be at least 35 years old and U.S. citizens?  Of course not.  Modifying congressional legislation without a new vote by Congress – that would flout the rule of law, as President Obama loved to do.

There are numerous pardons by Clinton and Obama that have been cited as comparisons to the Arpaio pardon.  In a fit of hubris, nearly every public comment dismisses these comparisons as irrelevant because two wrongs don't make a right.  But President Trump used his explicit power to right what he, in his sole judgment, thought was an injustice.  If I had written his speech, I might have attacked Judge Bolton and called for her impeachment for ignoring the clear words of the Constitution on the right to trial by jury, but then I am a hothead.

Notice that I have avoided discussing the merits of the case, though you might correctly guess that I think it had no merit.  That is beside the point.  Obviously, the biased judge didn't care to risk a jury trial because it might not sit well with Antifa.

Establishment Republicans and the chattering class are shedding crocodile tears for the rule of law, which they care about oh, so selectively.  A Wall Street Journal editorial was a monument to pomposity.  The L.A. Times and others called for a Trump impeachment.  Make no mistake about it: these people are enemies of the Constitution, or at least fellow travelers.

I close with heartfelt gratitude to President Trump for yet another courageous decision.  He may yet pay a political price for his loyalty to the Constitution.  I wish only that the Republican Party would find some backbone and support him.

Okay.  Let's get the dirty truth right out front.  I am sick of the courts ignoring the Constitution in order to enhance their own power.  Sometimes the language of the Constitution is so direct and unambiguous that no exceptions can be tolerated.  I present to you as Exhibit A two clauses of the U.S. Constitution, with two important phrases in bold type

Article III, Section 2.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.  Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses.

There are various precedents allowing judges to deny a jury trial in certain situations, including when the penalty does not exceed six months' imprisonment.  Now, old Jimmy Madison was one smart dude.  So were the signers and ratifiers of the Constitution.  If they had meant to create an exception to what is arguably the most important right safeguarded by the Constitution, does anyone doubt that they would have done so?

District Court Judge Susan Bolton (a Clinton appointee) denied Sheriff Joe a trial by jury.  Apparently, his own attorney conceded that the judge was within her rights to do so.  Huh?  Memo to Joe's lawyer: Please don't represent me ever.

Greater legal minds than mine all concur that the SCOTUS has affirmed this principle.  Heck, I don't even have a law degree, let alone one from Harvard and Yale, which masquerade as law schools.  But I'll put up my pitiful reliance on the plain meaning of words against their sophistry in a national referendum.  Once judges are allowed to flout the guarantee of trial by jury, no freedom we think we have is safe from judicial tyranny.  Even poor, uneducated voters should see the threat to their own safety.

The Constitution is often described as a document of checks and balances.  The various branches check each other in many ways.  The president is the ultimate check on judicial tyranny by virtue of his unrestricted power of pardon.  Suddenly, the left finds that to somehow flout the rule of law.  Oh, really?  Does it flout the rule of law to insist that presidents be at least 35 years old and U.S. citizens?  Of course not.  Modifying congressional legislation without a new vote by Congress – that would flout the rule of law, as President Obama loved to do.

There are numerous pardons by Clinton and Obama that have been cited as comparisons to the Arpaio pardon.  In a fit of hubris, nearly every public comment dismisses these comparisons as irrelevant because two wrongs don't make a right.  But President Trump used his explicit power to right what he, in his sole judgment, thought was an injustice.  If I had written his speech, I might have attacked Judge Bolton and called for her impeachment for ignoring the clear words of the Constitution on the right to trial by jury, but then I am a hothead.

Notice that I have avoided discussing the merits of the case, though you might correctly guess that I think it had no merit.  That is beside the point.  Obviously, the biased judge didn't care to risk a jury trial because it might not sit well with Antifa.

Establishment Republicans and the chattering class are shedding crocodile tears for the rule of law, which they care about oh, so selectively.  A Wall Street Journal editorial was a monument to pomposity.  The L.A. Times and others called for a Trump impeachment.  Make no mistake about it: these people are enemies of the Constitution, or at least fellow travelers.

I close with heartfelt gratitude to President Trump for yet another courageous decision.  He may yet pay a political price for his loyalty to the Constitution.  I wish only that the Republican Party would find some backbone and support him.

RECENT VIDEOS