US courts political factor Part 1

There is perhaps some valid concern about just how political US courts and in particular the US justice system is. There have been a number of cases that have raised some questions both in the US and abroad. Because of that, Connecting the Dots decided to see just what dots we can find and let people come to their own conclusion when we line them all up.

Americans like to think that the US court system is the benchmark standard other courts should look to match. But of late there has been a series of events that suggests that high standard may be getting tarnished with political agendas and personal egos that need satisfying. Add to that other countries are concerned about the political content of the US courts as well, most certainly signals a heads up and have a look around.

Most of what we plan to say in this series is very general in nature, and we will cite a few domestic and international ongoing cases as an example. In each case you need to be open minded about the who, what, where, and when that got things to the place it is today.

The very first case we will profile is former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. This case is clearly a blend of politics and egos. But in the simplest of terms we feel Rod is only guilty of spoken imagination about things that may be illegal. His personality type is to engage people’s imaginations as things come into the field of view. It all comes down to two words being ‘What if’.

It is the same two words that have seeded the interest of children to reach astonishing heights of accomplishment. Astronauts, scientists on the cutting edge of discovery, and breakthrough technology that changes all our lives are the results of what if.

In Rod’s case all he did was entertain the idea of what would happen if a person get involved in something that was illegal. He never actually stepped over the line, but only stepped up to it to look across and imagine what would happen.  Without changing anything except the topic of ‘what if’ to something not illegal, then his behavior would have been seen as a motivator and held in high regard in society.

So enter the political issue and the seemingly assumption of guilt when he was removed from office, that entire process was driven by emotion and not by fact. Although Rod had been indited at that point, and indictment simply means there is sufficient evidence to warrant suspicion of guilt and is formally accused. The only reason he should step down at that point is he would not be able to focus 100% on his job as Governor while preparing his legal defense.

The fact that in his first trial he was not convicted is one or more of the jurors simply could not see that Rod stepped over the line, and there was a lot of hype and emotion being presented by the prosecutors similar if not identical to the hype and emotion that got Rod removed from office. The fact that they are planning a round 2 on this simply spells ego. On the one charge Rod was convicted of, it simply boiled down to a coin toss. There was not sufficient evidence to suggest vagueness is a crime. If that was the case half the laws would be thrown off the books as many are vague and left up to a persons interpretations.

So to sum this up as we see it, Rod is a victim of prosecutors egos that spilled into political agendas. It is not a crime to imagine and say what if no matter what the topic.

Next Part 2 of 3

Comments are closed.