Editorial: For Independent Justice
President Trump continues to act as if he was an entrepreneur on a private trial, and refuses to understand the impact of his statements.
No terminan los desafíos legales a la medida del presidente Crédito: Andrew Harrerr | EFE
One difference between U.S. democracy and some Latin American systems is the independence and respect the U.S. awards the judicial branch of government. Separation of powers allows for a sense of stability, as one watches the other and resources exist to deal with inappropriate behavior. Justice usually has the last word.
That does not mean that selecting judges is exempt from politics.
The party currently ruling in the White House chooses federal judges according to the president’s ideas, and Congress confirms or rejects them. Once appointed, justices remain in the position for life, never having to be accountable to anyone for their decisions, which may involve the Legislative and Executive branches.
That is the case with the executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries. Its constitutionality is under review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In these cases, it is common to see presidents defend their position in a diplomatic manner and to wait for the decision, reaffirming the independence of the Judicial branch.
Things are different with President Donald Trump. The problem is the same we’ve seen many times before, but that does not make it any less serious. The leader continues to act as if he was an entrepreneur on a private trial, and refuses to understand the impact of his statements.
During his campaign, Trump said that a judge who failed to favor him in his decision on the Trump University case was a “Mexican” who “hates” him for his political opinions. A week ago, he said that a “so-called judge” blocked his executive order. Then, denounced at the appeals panel that politicizing courts could jeopardize the country’s security, adding that they would be to blame if any terrorist attacks occur here.
This caused Trump’s own nominee for the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch to state that the leader’s criticism against judges is “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Needless to say, Trump personally attacked the Democratic senator who quoted Gorsuch instead of the nominee, who said it first.
The level of political rhetoric has crumbled since the presidential campaign. Trump’s comment against judges are worthy of authoritarian, Third World leaders, those who want to intimidate judges in places where separation of powers is illusory. That is not our country.
