See Trump’s Mar-a-Lago speech at the bottom.
Before the law we are all supposed to be treated the same way. That is, we all are supposed to receive equal justice. Justice is what happens when each receive what is our due.
Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due with constant and perpetual will. — The phrase was popularized by Cicero in De Natura Deorum (“iustitia suum cuique distribuit“, justice renders to everyone his due) and later codified in the Justinian Corpus of Civil Law.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/41897/who-was-first-to-say-that-justice-is-to-give-each-his-due
Justice renders to everyone his due. How do we do that? Let’s look the legal definition of justice. The first definition is the most relevant.
Justice has three meanings:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justice
- Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken – both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions (see: due process).
- Justice is a legal structure or system that is designed to judge in a general sense who should be accorded a benefit or burden when the law is applied to a person’s factual circumstances.
- Justice is a title conferred upon a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeal, or the state courts of appeal.
Note the word “impartially” in the first definition. To give each one what is his due, we must do our best to avoid favoritism. Equal justice before the law requires us to ignore factors like race, wealth, political alignment, sex (where the differences don’t have material relevance), and so forth.
The requirement to be impartial is what makes administering justice difficult. For example, consider the difference between “justice” and so-called “social justice.” Whereas justice requires that EVERYONE be treated equally in court, “social justice” required equality of outcome, that is equity.
- In a just society, when people commit crimes, the criminals receive their due, punishment according to the crime they have committed.
- In a socially just society, when people commit crimes, the criminals receive what everyone else receive. In practice, that means those criminals who belong to favored groups receive no punishment (https://nypost.com/2022/11/27/numbers-show-consequences-of-manhattan-da-alvin-braggs-pro-crime-principles/).
Now consider the indictment (below) of President Donald Trump (from => https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/read-the-full-trump-indictment/ar-AA19tkpy). The indictment is essentially what was leaked to the news media in advance (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/trump-indictment-takeaways-analysis-00089988). It is a trumped-up charge (pun intended). So, that raises an obvious question. Has Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg treated President Donald Trump impartially (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/for-prosecutor-bragg-trump-indictment-is-campaign-promise-kept)? The answer is also obvious. No.
UPDATE: Here is Trump’s Mar-a-Lago speech. He gave it after returning home from the arraignment in New York. You can skip 23 minutes to get to the speech. The video is ridiculously long, but the speech is relatively brief.
Citizen Tom 
I am not reading any article on Trump’s arrest, etc. I do not think this action was right. I have known for some time that the Democrats aren’t interested in justice and only seek power and control over others.
Their actions and the actions of recent protesters, from Floyd George till now have made me think that we are getting to the time when Jesus said- as in the days of Noah. One of the things that took place in the days of Noah was that all men, women and children thought of was evil
You may find this interesting.
https://artaxes.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/the-return-of-the-gods/
I heard something on the Glenn Beck show today in a similar vein.
Mankind is inherently partial and biased. That’s nature and cannot be denied. Yes, we try to afford ourselves to strive for objectivity, and in very general, social, terms, we often can pass for some semblance of passing forward some objectivity.
But to address your summations about the justice system and “what it’s supposed to be”, let’s not forget that our governing system is made up of checks and balances.. and that includes the process by which we determine guilt or innocense of a crime. It’s not up to a single person to have the power to assign guilt but rather the process of presenting evidence, followed by a jury of one’s peers to determine the validity of evidence presented and then render a judgement. This check allows for diminishing effect of bias at the will of a single person. Even at that, some accused still do manage to be unjustly convicted over questionably attained evidence. Again, we have an appeal process to challenge the first conviction. Still, that can be equally as “incorrect”… but.. it is the best we can do as a nation in the scope of governing ourselves.
Pertaining to Bragg allegedly being biased to the point that he “has the power to make anyone guilty of a crime”. Well, no he doesn’t. The process requires he presents evidence to a grand jury first to determine if the evidence at hand will suffice for an indictment. Could he sway a group of ten people to “make” them indict the proverbial ham sandwich on faulty/contrived evidence? I’m sure it’s been done… somewhere. Still, there needs to be a trial by which the “ham sandwich” has a defense, presents its own evidence, and then a separate jury renders a judgement. Even that can be appealed… a number of times.
1. You are not a lawyer hence you are not qualified to render a “trumped up charge”.. unless of course your guy who is being charged with the crime is your personal bias, and the best is that you can render a “trumped up charges” claim based only from biased opinion.
2. Based on your biased opinion from above, did Bragg treat Trump’s investigation impartially? You say no. Equally, I can afford the opinion that I indeed don’t know if Bragg did, one way or the other. But I am ok with letting the justice system proceed further in a court of law… but only that the progressing into the justice system determines Trump innocense or guilt.. and NOT… if Bragg was impartial or not in presenting the evidence to the Grand Jury. His performance on the evidence provided to the court will seal his own professional fate/career, if that is pertinent. Trump’s guilt, or not, is not determined by the indictment alone, but by the justice process.
The equity in justice is that the process itself that determines guilt or not is equally applied, and not a process only to compel a single person to comply.
Then again, I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
Doug
That comment from a guy we know detests Donald Trump explains why Bragg proceeded with this case.
Here is an article written by a lawyer that explains what is wrong with the indictment => https://nypost.com/2023/04/04/braggs-case-is-a-legal-mess-what-is-he-even-charging-trump-with/.
Keep in mind that the record keeping charges are misdemeanors, and those misdemeanors are beyond the statute of limitations. So, the felony charges are critical to the case. Hence, the indictment is BS.
Bragg and the Democrats are using lawfare. They are harassing a political opponent using our legal system. You don’t understand that? Well, you had better figure it out. If you are okay with it, then God help you.
Please note that the Liberal Democrat Marxist party supports social justice, that is, systematic legal favoritism towards the groups that support it. Carried to its logical conclusion what is social justice? Slavery.
Slaves are slaves because they cannot use the legal system to protect their rights. Slaves are slaves because the legal system will not render to slaves what should be their own. Instead, unjust officials take what rightfully belongs to slaves and gives it to those the officials declare the slave masters.
And I bet you also fell for his whacko speech at Mar-a-Lago when he got back home. Every bit of it total lies, Tom.
Here.. you gave me that Conservative Post link… here’s some fact check on that B.S. speech..
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/donald-trump-arraignment-speech-fact-check/index.html
Doug
We should not waste time attacking people personally. When we debate people, we should deal with the logic of their position and known facts.
The indictment does not state what felony Trump is supposed to have committed. That is the literal truth. Read it. Bragg said he does not have to provide that information. Hence, Bragg has created an indictment that hides his purpose for charging Trump. He is effectively doing the exact same thing he has accused Trump of doing.
What is the old saying? If you want to know what a Liberal Democrat Marxist is guilty of doing, just look at what they are accusing you of doing.