Log in


Dime: Concerning the rule of law


Prudent judges typically strike down religious and political persecutions without a trial. If a U.S. citizen goes on trial, he/she must be treated fairly by an unbiased judge for justice and liberty to prevail.

A judge’s duty is to protect an individual’s rights to free speech, an impartial judicial system, the presumption of innocence, and seating a nonpartisan jury. A judge that does not protect these rights is violating the rule of law.

The judge instructs the jury to follow the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights and liberties of U.S. citizens. Justice must remain blind to fairly argue, judge and render a judicious legal decision. A prosecutor that declared a victim guilty before he/she takes their office cannot impartially present that case. Jurors restricted to a highly biased political jurisdiction will likely be of similar political tendencies. And a judge who has been predisposed to supporting the accused political opponent is likely to be biased or at least be perceived as biased.

These breaches of the rule of law has Justice heading full steam into being another banana republic government politically motivated to persecute individuals, not legally protect them.

The rule of law establishes precedents as guidelines to protect U.S. citizens from those that attempt to violate their rights and liberties. Constitutional precedents protect U.S. citizens from unprincipled government bureaucrats that abuse the authority they have been granted. Bureaucrats that illegally collude are abusing their authority and corrupting the rule of law. Regardless of what they personally believe a prosecutor or judge has the legal obligation to recuse themselves from a case if they appear to be tainted in any manner. 

If tyrannical bureaucrats are allowed to break the rule of law, no citizen is safe from persecution.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.