I’m assuming if you’re reading this, you’ve read my work before. So here’s a question:
Do you think I could be objective about Donald Trump? More specifically, if you were Trump’s attorney, would you pick me out of a pool of jurors to sit in judgment of his case (any of them)?
I imagine your answer is something like, “Hell no.” And you’d have a point. My purpose in life is opinion writing, so my takes are out there, all over the place.
But what if my job (even temporarily as a juror) was to sit in judgment of Trump with real consequences in the mix? Could I listen to the facts, assess the documents, hear the testimony, and base my decision on those things and not my preconceived opinion of the former president?
I think I could, actually, but there’s probably some delusion attached to that. The point is, why would anyone else, even people who agree with me, think that it’s possible for me to be objective in that situation?
You with me so far?
Now let’s talk about Sam Alito. My mood around this guy won’t even allow me to put his title before his name. But you probably know he’s a Supreme Court justice who has decided he doesn’t have to hide his allegiances. I mean, even the ones to certain flags and whether they’re flown upright.
Please note the difference between him and your plumber or barista or nurse holding a strong opinion about a provably corrupt former president’s actions such as inciting an insurrection and potentially interrupting the transfer of power. It’s a big deal.
To be clear, this is not about whether he agrees with me or not on issues that come before the court. I can’t recall ever thinking Antonin Scalia was putting democracy on the line and bending toward Christian nationalism even though we disagreed on pretty much everything politically.
We’re in a danger zone when Supreme Court justices won’t recuse themselves from cases where their judgment is provably skewed. Clarence Thomas – putting all the lavish gifts aside for a moment – has a wife who sent texts to the White House during the attempted insurrection. How in the world are we to believe he won’t be influenced by that?
No recusal.
Alito didn’t hesitate for a moment to lay blame for his controversial flags on his spouse, who we now know isn’t keen on gay people. What a nice bonus. And so heartwarming of Martha-Ann. She’s entitled to her beliefs, but are we not entitled to a justice who keeps his religion out of the law?
Sir, you can pray every night that this nation becomes godlier. That is your right. But once you put that robe on, you work for us. And by us, I mean Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, witches. All of us.
I’m no legal scholar. Not a Supreme Court aficionado. Not even a history buff. I’m a United States citizen who knows when she’s being hustled by a revered institution.
If I can understand why a Trump attorney wouldn’t select me for his jury, I’m sure the justices can do a little soul searching and figure out why the Supreme Court has such low approval ratings right now. Instead of blaming the press and the nation’s great divide, try going within and policing yourselves.
Your can’t-touch-this attitude reeks.
[Editorial Note: This is my 13th installment in a series I began in order to give my writing some flow after being in a healing phase from knee surgeries for a year (2023-24).]
