Trial by jury, respect for the rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence—along with a belief in and reliance upon facts and evidence—are not universal values. Summary executions, extra-judicial killings and mob rule have a greater appeal to some.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) smirked that Judge Jackson would have defended Nazis at Nuremberg. Why not? He should know better.
Cotton may have snoozed through civics as a boy at Dardanelle High School back in Arkansas but he had a second chance at Harvard. In addition to civil procedure, contracts, legislation, regulation, property and torts, First-year law students also take courses in criminal law and constitutional law.
Cotton took an oath upon entering the military and Congress. If he didn’t understand the Constitution, he should have had it explained to him before he swore to support and defend it. Twice.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
The Constitution of the United States isn’t very long. The Bill of Rights is straightforward.
The 6th Amendment guarantees:
1. the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,
2. the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against one,
3. the right to obtain and confront witnesses, and (wait for it),
4. the right to assistance of counsel— that’s the defense attorney part.
One understands Cotton’s confusion. Trial by jury, respect for the rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence—along with a belief in and reliance upon facts and evidence—are not universal values.
Summary executions, extra-judicial killings and mob rule have a greater appeal to others.
For the White right, the accent on “law and order” has always been on “order.” For all its bluster about law and order, it has been comfortable for generations with wielding the power of the state to reinforce racial hierarchies. The judge, jury and executioner model does not provide protections for the accused.
The Emmitt Till Antilynching Act is problematic for several reasons—1) it trivializes the historical context and unique horror of lynching, 2) it arrives decades after its heyday—but still, represents an effort to address a glaring departure from American ideals.
It is noteworthy, however, that Republicans were on the short end of the 422-3 vote that got it through the House.
It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, which error (thank you Chuck Schumer) saved Senate Republicans the embarrassment of needing to show up and actually participate in a roll call vote to which their names would be attached.
(A “failure to object” on the part of those who showed up is a stealth maneuver and not equivalent to a vote for or against— they get “credit” for being in the Senate that passed the legislation into law without making targets of themselves to their constituents.)
How does all of this square with the much ballyhooed notion of “judicial philosophy” over which Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have been so obsessed? Does it go beyond “White is right?”
One more irony— who has defended Nazis more tellingly than Donald Trump, the head of Tom Cotton’s own Republican Party?
Are there still fine people on both sides?
Connect the Dots 101 Blog 