We divorce truth from justice all the time and we do so quite consciously. For example, a policeman stops an automobile and makes an impermissible that is an unreasonable search of the automobile and finds a huge quantity of illegal drugs. The drivers arrested and charged with possession. The defendant does not deny that he was in possession of the drugs but claims that the drugs cannot be used as evidence against him because it is contrary to the fourth amendment. The Court throws out the evidence-the drugs-because the search was contrary to the Constitution. By definition, a guilty man went free. Indeed, by definition suppression of evidence for improper search and seizure is contrary to truth because the defendant, by definition, is guilty.
It is a deliberate policy of the courts that to discourage the police from making unreasonable searches and seizures, that is to protect the privacy of our citizens, the fruits of unreasonable searches cannot be used in evidence. Truth suffers for justice.
If we really wanted to equate justice with truth we would simply water board every witness and check out their stories and confessions and proceed very efficiently to find "truth."
I'm simply trying to say that there are always countervailing values to be weighed. In a search and seizure case the Court holds that "justice", to the degree that it is defined as the search for "truth," must take a back seat to a higher value, in this case, privacy.
If the Court declines to intervene in the matter of a mountebank in the oval office for political reasons or reasons of national security, it certainly will not be the first time the Court has so behaved. The court will say there are higher values at stake. Beyond the obvious overwhelming value of national security is a matter of judicial restraint which is regarded to be a virtue in some quarters.
