Cultural Marxism and the corruption of common law

Peaceful and productive human societies depend on the maintenance of judicial principles that are consistent and impartial.

(Article by William Brooks republished from TheEpochTimes.com)

During the 12th-century reign of Henry II, the English king began to establish a more trustworthy system of legal decision making. The king’s judges were asked to consider verdicts that had been reached in similar cases.

Throughout the following centuries legal decision making was based on tradition and custom. This unified system of justice became known as “English Common Law.”

The legal principle, commonly known as “stare decisis,” discouraged dishonest plaintiffs from seeking unprecedented settlements for specious allegations against parties whom they disliked or sensed they could take advantage of.

The adoption of English common law in America made the United States particularly attractive to free, hard-working people who sought to engage in honest commerce, acquire capital, remain secure in their persons, protect their property and reputations, participate in public affairs, practice their religion, and live well-ordered lives.

When jurists feel compelled to make fair comparisons with precedent-setting cases, justice is generally well served.

Transforming American Justice

Things don’t always change for the better. Over several generations Marxist intellectuals have been transforming the American justice system. They regard a commitment to neutrality as a way of disguising “colonialist” and “patriarchal” power structures. Since the 1980s this has led to fierce partisan disputes over the nomination of judges and serious doubts about impartiality in American courts.

Marxism is a conflict-oriented ideology, and Marxists view liberal conceptions of freedom, democracy, and justice as instruments of “oppression.” The American left defines pro-American descendants of European colonists as “oppressors.” More recently, this status has expanded to include African American conservatives, legal Hispanic immigrants, election fraud protesters, concerned parents, practicing Catholics, Jews, or anyone else President Joe Biden chooses to call a “MAGA extremist.”

Cultural Marxists imagine victims of oppression at all levels of American society. The “oppressed” can include university-educated elites, radical militants, anti-American identity groups, drug addicts, homeless vagrants, habitual criminals, and millions of illegal migrants. “Social” as opposed to “actual” justice requires that people with victim status receive special protection while alleged oppressors are summarily prosecuted and punished.

Justice Must Be Done and Seen to Be Done

Legal scholars once insisted that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.” Everyone should be able to expect a fair trial that’s accurately covered by public news organizations.

But unbiased judges and honest reporters are in short supply. While Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing unprecedented indictments, journalists are still insisting that American justice is fair and impartial.

The left’s recourse to “lawfare” requires judges and journalists to conceal the truth rather than expose it. Legacy news organizations say there’s no evidence of the “weaponization of justice” or a “two-tiered” legal system. But, as specious allegations come before American courts, folks can’t help noticing that the so-called “oppressed” usually win.

For example, in 2019 American advice columnist E. Jean Carroll suddenly accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Mr. Trump vigorously denied the allegations, but Ms. Carroll was permitted to sue him for defamation and battery.

One could have guessed the outcome of this case before it began. The left views Donald Trump as an arch-oppressor, and E. Jean Carroll was seen as an “oppressed” victim.

In May 2023, a New York jury found the former president liable for defamation and sexual abuse and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages. In January of this year, Mr. Trump was found liable in a second defamation suit, and Ms. Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million. The second award was unprecedented.

Late in January, Breitbart News reporter Hannah Bleau Knudsen revealed several facts about this case that she said the establishment media didn’t want the public to know.

First, there were no witnesses and no surveillance video of the attack, which was alleged to have occurred in a downtown New York department store.

The plaintiff came forward with her story while promoting a book titled “What Do We Need Men For?,” which featured a list of “The Most Hideous Men of My Life.” The dress she claimed to be wearing during the alleged attack was not for sale in the year she initially claimed the event occurred. Despite her public reputation for being very open about sexual matters, she didn’t accuse President Trump until some 30 years after the alleged encounter.

Her entire story was very similar to a 2012 “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” episode, titled “Theatre and Tricks,” in which an individual talks about a rape fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman. In a November 1993 edition of Elle, before the alleged abuse, Ms. Carroll had made a joke associating sex with Bergdorf Goodman.

E. Jean Carroll’s case was financially backed by anti-Trump Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman. One of her lawyers is Roberta Kaplan, whose wife is a Democratic Party activist. In fact, her lawsuit was only able to proceed after New York Democrats created a 2022 “Adult Survivors Act,” which allowed judges to overlook the usual statute of limitations for such charges.

Judgments in cases that are tried in partisan-charged venues such as New York City or Washington, D.C., have almost become forgone conclusions.

A steep decline of common law principles will not bode well for the future of the American Republic. Who would have thought that in 2024 American citizens would be witnessing a partisan special prosecutor seeking the U.S. Supreme Court’s permission to put the opposing party’s presidential candidate on trial months before a presidential election.

Read more at: TheEpochTimes.com