Comments on: Justice Delayed http://www.chrisweigant.com/2021/10/18/justice-delayed/ Reality-based political commentary Sat, 02 May 2026 07:43:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: nypoet22 http://www.chrisweigant.com/2021/10/18/justice-delayed/#comment-181056 nypoet22 Wed, 20 Oct 2021 02:20:08 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=21115#comment-181056 drive-by pies in the face are encouraged, however. drive-by pies in the face are encouraged, however.

]]> By: Elizabeth Miller http://www.chrisweigant.com/2021/10/18/justice-delayed/#comment-181052 Elizabeth Miller Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:02:04 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=21115#comment-181052 Drive-by links are strictly prohibited around here, ya know. Drive-by links are strictly prohibited around here, ya know.

]]> By: John M from Ct. http://www.chrisweigant.com/2021/10/18/justice-delayed/#comment-181042 John M from Ct. Tue, 19 Oct 2021 01:51:00 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=21115#comment-181042 I appreciate the zeal, but an amendment like that seems inconceivable. The primary problem is, who is actually for it? As you say, the legal profession would not be, whether on the explicit principle of unaccelerated due process or on the implicit principle that fees accrue as a function of time in the court process. But how about our elected leaders? Would they really favor a deadline on "all cases concerning the operation of government", by which their bureaucratic or institutional interests might suffer a hasty and adverse ruling? And the People, as you so grandly capitalize them: would the American people really understand why a constitutional amendment to rapidly adjudge "all cases concerning the operation of government" is necessary, especially when the amendment declares that such a judgment is in their own interest - as a People, whatever the heck that means? And in the end, this entire screed is really aimed at Trump and his supporters among the People, and among the elected representatives of our government. No constitutional amendment is going to overcome the threat that you describe: that the legal process can easily and intrinsically be hijacked to delay and ultimately bury righteous lawsuits to bring a rogue president or rogue congressmen or rogue cabinet members or rogue state officials to constitutional justice. Quicker than an amendment would be a Democratic Congress and president that would appoint federal judges who pledged to treat "all cases concerning the operation of government" extremely expeditiously for the public good. If those good people can't even get the federal judiciary on board with the need for expedited trials of rogue public servants, how can we expect that judiciary to correctly interpret a fantasy amendment that, like any constitutional article, can be read any way a judge wants to read it? I appreciate the zeal, but an amendment like that seems inconceivable. The primary problem is, who is actually for it? As you say, the legal profession would not be, whether on the explicit principle of unaccelerated due process or on the implicit principle that fees accrue as a function of time in the court process.

But how about our elected leaders? Would they really favor a deadline on "all cases concerning the operation of government", by which their bureaucratic or institutional interests might suffer a hasty and adverse ruling?

And the People, as you so grandly capitalize them: would the American people really understand why a constitutional amendment to rapidly adjudge "all cases concerning the operation of government" is necessary, especially when the amendment declares that such a judgment is in their own interest - as a People, whatever the heck that means?

And in the end, this entire screed is really aimed at Trump and his supporters among the People, and among the elected representatives of our government. No constitutional amendment is going to overcome the threat that you describe: that the legal process can easily and intrinsically be hijacked to delay and ultimately bury righteous lawsuits to bring a rogue president or rogue congressmen or rogue cabinet members or rogue state officials to constitutional justice. Quicker than an amendment would be a Democratic Congress and president that would appoint federal judges who pledged to treat "all cases concerning the operation of government" extremely expeditiously for the public good. If those good people can't even get the federal judiciary on board with the need for expedited trials of rogue public servants, how can we expect that judiciary to correctly interpret a fantasy amendment that, like any constitutional article, can be read any way a judge wants to read it?

]]>