With the prosecutions of previous President Donald Trump, attempts to endanger John Eastman of his law registration, and the ironic contempt proceedings against Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, Americans today understand that something is terribly wrong with our legal system. Lately, the continuing loss of our constitutional system has moved to the Great Lakes State.
That, a constitutional disagreement arose after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the presidential contest and begged Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to remove his name from the vote. In a sane world, Benson may have removed Kennedy ’s brand upon receipt of his plea. But Benson is a far-left extreme who fancies herself a “guardian” of democracy. She also wrote a self-congratulatory text to that result. Therefore, she refused.
Benson refused as she understood that if Kennedy ’s label remained on the ballot, some Michigan voters had cast a pointless vote for him, which may help Kamala Harris. On the other hand, if Benson removed Kennedy ’s label from the poll, many of those same voters had cast a crucial vote for Trump, whom Kennedy endorsed on Aug. 23, 2024. Since Michigan is a battle state, this one dispute may affect the 2024 vote and, by implication, the future of the United States of America.
With Benson’s rejection, Kennedy filed match. The subject made its way through the Michigan state authorities and finally to the Sixth Circuit. That, the table was set for the legal system to show its objectivity by ordering Benson to reduce Kennedy ’s label from the vote. Otherwise, the jury did the opposite.
A Partial Court
The facts reveal that there was no logistical justification for Benson’s refusal to remove Kennedy ’s name — it was n’t as though she did n’t had time to do so. However, as the opposition reveals, Benson immediately distributed ballots without Kennedy ’s brand after a lower judge ruled against her. Also, the two Michigan rules Benson cites in her opposition were of questionable power — surely hardly sufficient to warrant throwing an entire national presidential election into chaos.
Since there was no explanation for Benson’s conduct, the jury resorted to constitutional sleight-of-hand. The majority opinion, drafted by Judge Eric Clay and joined by far-left environmentalist Judge Rachel Bloomekatz, resembles all present constitutional ideas. It looks like a legitimate view that does what legal ideas are supposed to do: explanation from first principles.
But looks can be deceiving.
In fact, the jury reached its finish first and then backfilled it with “reasoning. ” This is why the mind is full of recommendations to obscure constitutional principles such as re judicata, laches, and the Rooker-Feldman theory. The use of mysterious principles to consider issues of great national significance is the hallmark of a judge who made up his mind first and then groped around for constitutional justifications — the very reverse of what a judge is supposed to accomplish.
If you have n’t heard of these legal principles, don’t worry. They are not the right legal tools for deciding important issues like, you know, who the president of the United States should be. Instead, they are intended to make it seem like the court’s order was the product of legal reasoning when in fact it was rank partisanship.
Weaponized Legal System
Meanwhile, the 11-page majority opinion never acknowledges the actual dispute: Kennedy wants Michigan’s voters to be able to vote for Trump, the candidate Kennedy endorsed. At the same time, Benson wants to deceive voters into thinking they can vote for Kennedy. Kennedy knows that if his name is removed, Michigan’s electoral votes could go to Trump, which could decide the national election. Benson also knows this and does n’t like it. Again, this is the crux of the entire legal dispute, which is odd given that the court never alludes to it.
A legal system that refuses to acknowledge plain facts is not capable of delivering honest truths. This is what it means to have a weaponized legal system. Everybody knows what’s happening here: the majesty of the law is providing cover for partisan politics.
These cynical attempts to subvert our legal order are both hypocritical and routine — rule for thee but not for me is the defining ethos of woke leftism. Thus it ’s almost trite to observe that the outcome of this case would have been different had Kennedy endorsed Harris. Reasonable people know this. They also know that years of pointing out hypocrisy has revealed that leftist operatives are immune to these sorts of allegations. Their side never holds them to account.
Even so, it is hypocritical that the bureaucrats who control Michigan’s election system want Kennedy ’s name to remain on the ballot. It was, after all, only last year when their leftist counterparts in at least 37 states attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. In both cases, these types insist that they are saving “our democracy ” by violating every one of its legal norms.
The most straightforward interpretation of Benson’s conduct is that she used the “color of law ” ( i. e. , her legal authority ) to disenfranchise voters who prefer Kennedy but would accept Trump. A Trump Department of Justice would be well-advised to scrutinize this conduct.
At any rate, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Kennedy is rank partisan politics dressed up in legal nonsense. It mimics the form of legal reasoning without any of its substance. In a normal country, with properly functioning legal institutions and well-trained nonpartisan judges, the opinion would have consisted of one sentence: “Since Robert F. Kennedy is not running for president, his name shall not appear on the presidential ballot. ” That’s what used to be known as legal reasoning.