Skip to main content

View Diary: Court to Vermont: "Drop Dead" (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, we run into the presumption of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, Joieau, macdust

    probity or good, the partner of the presumption of innocence when someone is suspected of having done a wrong.  
    While the presumption of innocence has often been transformed into a mere starting point for a trial, it's still a valid principle.  Conservatives hate it because it asserts that uncertainty and insecurity are a given.  It there's anything conservatives want it's to be sure.  That's why they favor 'no.' No is definite.  Yes implies the potential of failure and 'maybe.'

    At the same time, it's conservatives who are so risk averse who have gravitated towards the artificial person or corporation, making it virtually immortal and immune--i.e. giving it an artificial certainty--which unimaginable threats to everyone's safety, but they don't have to recognize it, or can't, because corporations, not being able to be held accountable, can do no wrong.  See, if one can't be blamed (if one obeys), then one can do no wrong.

    That makes no sense if one assumes that blame follows (comes after) the deed, but conservatives don't think sequentially.  So, they have no problem thinking backwards and concluding that no blame means no wrong occurred.
    For an example, recollect Richard Nixon's argument that "when the President does it, it's not a crime" (which was never tested in court, btw).  What he was saying was because he was presumably acting on behalf of the nation, a presumption that went with his position, no blame or judgment of wrong could attach to his actions--the President, having taken an oath of office, has been rendered immune from error.  It's a secular version of what Catholics claim for the Pope. And, indeed, when Nixon entered into public life, that was the status of the law.  All public officials enjoyed "sovereign immunity" in the conduct of their official positions, as long as they did not benefit themselves personally. So, since Nixon ordered the offices of a psychiatrist to be burgled for the good of the party/country, he considered himself immune, but the law had changed in 1947.  That he tried to buy off the burglars was another matter. Then it became personal in that he was trying to avoid embarrassment.
    It was a mistake to let him resign. Bigger one to give him a pardon.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:12:28 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site