It's called "Lawfare" where the Left attack those of different political persuasions by using the courts rather than the ballot box - it's an attempt to roll back democracy. So Trump is accused of overvaluing his property to get loans and a court cited his Mar-a-Lago property as an example, which they valued at $18 million.
Other valuations are more like $500 million. This place is a huge gold and marble palace with 58 bedrooms, 17 acres and a golf course. So Trump borrowed money against it from various banks. None of the banks are complaining - they got their money back plus interest and both parties were happy. But the courts are trying to shut down Trump's business empire on the basis of ludicrous claims.
Lawfare is also at work in the UK. Boris was prevented from proroguing Parliament (to prevent Labour hijacking the agenda and legislating to make leaving the EU impossible). The pro-EU courts ruled the prorogation illegal (in a coup that Lord Sumption said was a prime example of the courts making law rather than interpreting it). The Left then called in the police to investigate Boris for lying about parties at no. 10. They investigated him for 6 months and charged him on one count of "being ambushed by a cake" for a few minutes. The left then set up a kangaroo court (chaired by Harriet Harperson - who said Boris was guilty before the mock trial) - to find him guilty of lying to the House. Et cetera.
Lawfare is becoming a serious problem in countries where the lawyers have taken over. Elected governments are being prevented from enacting the will of the people by courts who think they're the "Executive". Lord Sumption did the Reith lectures partly on this subject.
Why is it always "The Left".
You think "The Right" doesn't use the law to its own benefit?
I am more Right than the Tories on some issues within Law & Order.
I am more Left than Starmer's New-Nu-Lab on some issues of Economics.
In my opinion only a moron picks one spot on the Left / Right spectrum and pins all their political aspirations on it.
And really, the quaint adherence to the "Left vs Right" spectrum conflict is laughable, it really only works in a two-party state, Politics is way more nuanced than that these days, the real issue is that so many people have not been smart enough to figure that out, and they therefore fell "politics is letting them down" when is reality they are letting down the political system in this country. Genuine democracy required informed voters, those who still think is exclusively about Left vs Right are NOT informed voters.
Lawfare is made up word to make it sound like some section of society is being unfairly singled out in some way.
What you call "lawfare" in and childish attempt to make it sound nefarious and scary is what rationale people call "The Rule Of Law".
Every civilised nation on this planet adheres to its own "Rule Of Law" - because doing so is the ONLY way to protect all individuals from the tyranny of the masses, the tyranny of the state, and the tyranny of corporate greed.
The section of society that is being singled out, not unfairly mind you, by what you call "lawfare" does indeed have a name: they are called criminals, they broke the law.
Are you suggesting that the law should not pursue criminals for some reason?
Is that reason that "you happen to agree with them politically".
I'll say again, it does not matter what Trump does, the Law can not go after him if he has NOT broken the law.
He broke the law - it is not only acceptable for the Law to go after him in those cases it is 100% wholly necessary.
I follow UK Politics pretty closely.
Boris illegally prorogued Parliament - he should have been investigated by the law.
Boris did lie to parliament about the parties - even my mother who is a huge Boris fan and thought he could do no wrong came to realise that.
Lord Sumption is a prime example of a Trumpian response to something they don't like - claim it was flawed without showing how in law it was flawed.
Were any of the charges laid against Boris Johnson legally flawed in anyway he would have appealed them, and they would have been overturned - he didn't, why? Could it be he knew he couldn't win an appeal.
I wonder, if Trump or Johnson, had been vindicated by the respective courts that passed judgement on them would you still mistrust those courts?
Do you have any evidence of a failure of due process?
Or is the reason you question them solely because you don't like the outcome?
Because frankly, that is just a "waah waah waah I can't get my own way, it is just not fair waah waah" childish temper-tantrum.
Here's a basic primer on how The Law works:
The People Elect Governments.
Governments set Laws.
The Judiciary takes cases to examine if specific events have broken the law, and where they have the hand down sentences to the perpetrators.
There are several avenues of Appeal if a perpetrator is not happy with the judgement handed down to them.
If, at any point, the so called "Will Of The People" is at odds with the The Law the correct means of addressing that is for the "Will Of The People" to elect Governments who have pledged to change The Laws they disagree with.
The Will Of The People was to leave the EU - we did so.
Can you demonstrate a situation where the "Will Of The People", as expressed via a legal ballot, has been denied in this country?
All The Best
Other valuations are more like $500 million. This place is a huge gold and marble palace with 58 bedrooms, 17 acres and a golf course. So Trump borrowed money against it from various banks. None of the banks are complaining - they got their money back plus interest and both parties were happy. But the courts are trying to shut down Trump's business empire on the basis of ludicrous claims.
) but bias is not very hard to find in the major players.
