Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RICARDO's avatar

# Re: Response to David

Dear Ricardo,

I hope this message finds you as comfortable as one can be in a hospital bed lacking satin sheets and medicinal syrups. I promise not to burden you with complex questions until you're either fully recovered or I've transformed your hospital room into something that would make the Ritz Carlton look like a highway motel.

The dichotomy you've presented about the law's purpose is fascinating; justice versus rationalization of injustice. Your 1893 Boston example perfectly illustrates how legal precedent can be weaponized against common sense. "The land still exists, so pay rent for your non-existent apartment" has the same logical foundation as "This pile of ashes used to be your car, so continue making payments." If this is not a reason for revolution I don't know what is...

The Trump v. United States ruling does seem to follow this troubling pattern. The Supreme Court essentially created a "Get Out of Jail Free" card that only works if you've managed to become President first. It's like saying bank robbers should be immune from prosecution because the stress of potential jail time might prevent them from robbing banks with sufficient boldness and creativity.

As John Lennon wisely observed about learning to "smile as you kill," the law often dresses its most troubling decisions in noble language. It's rather like putting a bow tie on a piranha and calling it a distinguished dinner guest.

Rest up and heal quickly. The legal system may be broken, but you still need to be in fighting shape to point it out.

With best wishes for your recovery,

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts