8. The Lady In Action

Continuing from the last post about Lady Justice, let’s then move into an example.

The most prominent example, as of this writing (which was originally in 2020), is the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

This is not talked about here because of political ideology, but it is mentioned because it was the most recent, talked about, and known example, and it has some very good information to work as an example for this topic. Plus, everyone should be somewhat familiar with this example.

Are you sure this is a good idea? I mean, someone could get upset. It’s been called hate speech to speak the words of him, right?

That is true, and someone could, and almost certainly will, get upset. Only deplorable garbage would speak of him.

As I said in Episode 001: My First Post, Or Is It? “Hate speech is that which encourages violence toward a person or group, and is often expressed as hatred for a group of people. Hate speech is not speech, perceptions, facts, or ideology that you just do not like or agree with.”

Even so, as much as most people do not like it (and rightly so), if you do not allow hate speech, then you are not truly for free speech.

But, sure, there were a plethora of examples during that year and the years leading up to that time to choose from, but not many as widely covered and universally known—at least, in part—as this one.

We, in the United States of America, have rules and laws and balances to follow in order to rightly and justly get things done; Lady Justice is meant to uphold these laws and help keep that balance.

As I mentioned in another writing, the House of Representatives has a duty to call upon and investigate any possible and believed-to-be-wrongdoing by a president—treason, bribery, or other high crimes. This is one of their jobs; they are authorized and commissioned for this. The House is responsible for investigating a supposed crime that could potentially warrant impeachment. It is their job to sift through the materials, gather evidence, interview witnesses, and properly put together all the documents required for a fair, balanced, just, and lawful trial.

In other words, it is their duty, in such a happening and case, to seek justice—Lady Justice.

The House is also responsible for justly and rightly allowing and showcasing any evidence and witnesses that might be in contradiction to the case they are attempting to put together so that the witnesses and evidence can showcase their evidence and speak for their defense, and the House is to allow the defendant the right to adequate representation during the investigation and possible trial. That is, both sides—the accuser(s) and the accused—must be allowed to present and defend their case to the House (this includes witnesses from both sides permitted to testify for each) and be put in the documentation before it is sent to the Senate to be tried in court. They are to subpoena witnesses to testify to the House before submitting all the documentation to the Senate. The House must allow due process—that is, proper procedure. Justice.

The Senate’s job—what it is authorized and commissioned to do in this case—is to review all the materials presented to them by the House and not proceed in further investigations or their own investigations. They are to trust that the House has done their constitutional duty through due process and make their decision based on the material and evidence presented by the House. The Senate is the court in which the House’s claims will be tried. They can, as far as I understand, call witnesses that were already subpoenaed by the House, but they should not, and are not to, find and call their own witnesses to then testify, or they greatly risk skewing their job as the court for the impeachment with political bias and unlawful acts. The Senate acts as the court for the impeachment hearings.

This is also another place where Lady Justice, supposedly, holds the balance.

There is a huge difference between a court of impeachment (which was the Senate’s job) and a committee of investigation (which was the House’s job).

Whether one likes a president or not and whether one perceives any wrongdoing that has occurred or not is irrelevant when it comes to what is right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, constitutional and unconstitutional, and justice prevailing.

Perception and personal feelings do not birth fact and truth.

Remember the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton? It was, at first, from what I understand and can remember, about his infidelity and defilement of the Oval Office with, then, White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. This was a moral wrong in biblical justice, but an acceptable and daily practice in the culture of society. He did something morally and presidentially wrong—according to some standards, and the standards we tend to hold our leaders to—but it was not, according to law, impeachable wrong. However, in the processes, during the due process where he and his legal team could speak their side, he, instead of telling the truth, told a bald-faced lie in Congress; he was caught in perjury—which is a violation of federal law and, as it states, a “miscarriage of justice.”

It was morally right to confront him on his sin of infidelity and defilement, but it was not a legal issue worthy of impeachment. However, his choice to thwart justice was impeachable.

However, if the process is not lawful, if the process is not constitutional, if the process is (unanimously) skewed, if the process is held hostage for biased political demands, then not only should that bring about major questions and concerns for ‘We The People,’ but it would beg the thought that for the current proceedings it matters not if a perceived crime occurred or not—the case must be voted down and thrown out. In that case, true justice could be thwarted by the ever-changing social justice of the political day.

If a mishandled, non-lawful, and unconstitutional case is upheld, is that truly justice?

Does the end justify the means? If so, then by what means should we stop at to uphold our version, our idea, our perceptions of right and wrong, our interpretation of the Constitution, and our opinion and perception of justice?

If it takes bias to overcome perceived bias, does impartiality, fairness, and open-mindedness even matter?

If it takes unlawfulness and wrongdoing to overcome perceived wrongdoing, then does it matter if there was truly any wrongdoing anymore?

If a case cannot be presented and won without violation of law and without constitutional corruption, then was there really any case to begin with?

If it takes injustice to apply a perceived justice, then does justice even matter anymore?