Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There Is a Principle at Stake Here
A lot of folks joined the self-styled “resistance” following President Trump’s election, either because they believed his election was illegitimate (and probably still do, though lengthy investigations pretty well confirm that they’re mistaken), or because they can’t stand losing and so do it badly.
It turns out there really wasn’t anything to resist, per se, following the 2016 election. Far from creating a fascist dictatorship, the administration set about dismantling authoritarian government programs (we call it “deregulating”) and appointing judges who would favor Constitutional values (we call them “civil rights”) over government diktats.
In the wake of the Wuhan virus epidemic, the administration has continued to distinguish itself by not seizing control of the country, and instead letting the states exercise their Constitutionally protected rights to manage their own affairs as they see fit. Our Governors could learn a thing or two from our President. Unfortunately, that would require a bit of humility on their part, and that is too often wanting.
There’s another resistance growing now, one more significant than the last one. This one is composed of people who, unlike the petulant losers of the anti-Trump resistance, are actually experiencing a loss of freedom at the hands of government. These are people who have surrendered their rights based on an understanding that “flattening the curve” was the goal and the justification, but who are now told that they have to stay home and watch their businesses and livelihoods fail because … well, just because. Just for their own good. Just until their governor decides to change his or her mind and let them get on with their lives.
This kind of presumptuous autocratic nonsense is something worth resisting. The curve was flattened. It’s time for the government to get off our backs. Resistance to this arbitrary exercise of authority is growing. Governors need to listen.
Bryan, this is Henry’s post. If Henry wants to interact with me, I am happy to do so, but when people pile on, then this becomes “one of those threads.” I don’t want to do that.
You don’t like me. I get that. But I am going to limit my interactions in this post to Henry, and folks who don’t want to tell me (and others) what a horrible person I am.
Back to the principle concept of a free people with a representative government, the part of the Dallas salon story that most bothers me is the conditions the judge demanded of the salon owner in his offer to release the salon owner from the sentence. Those conditions included a requirement for her to apologize to “elected officials” for disregarding their edicts, as though the officials who unilaterally issued the edicts were the rulers of the salon owner and not elected representatives who work for the citizens. Forced groveling before rulers is the territory of authoritarian regimes, not a citizen run republic.
I really don’t understand your response here. Why would comparing you to someone you admire merely to illustrate how your views differ from those participating in the discussion be a CoC infraction?
I gave this comment a like just for that last sentence.
Yeah, that was so un-American. Bend the knee, or else!
But, the $3,500 fine, plus daily additions for not closing the salon and 7 days in jail? He went way too far. He clearly has no idea how devastating his action is to an employer who is helping her employees to feed their kids! He’s one of the privileged, protected class.
Klavan says we should erect a statue to her. I agree!
Judges in Texas have already warned officials that if restrictions are unreasonable or sustained past the day where they are strictly necessary then the courts will strike them down, so I don’t think that tyranny and despotism is really a thing here.
Or, perhaps more precisely, presumptuous autocratic nonsense is a thing there, but there is redress. And redress is a good thing, I agree.
It was a judge who imposed the fines and jail time on the salon owner. As I say, federalism is great until it falls into the wrong (lefty) hands.
Federalism doesn’t tell you what you will get so it is not automatically good or bad, it just provides choices among the fifty states for opportunities to do things differently. I think there is a class of judges in Texas that have executive as well as judicial powers. Can someone from Texas clarify that?
Hi Bob,
I am proud to be compared to George Conway. I also think that Rick Wilson’s potty mouth gets him into trouble and detracts from his message.
Gary
He is a man, Gary, who seeks to humiliate his wife in public.
Are you married? Would you do that to your wife? Let’s hope not. Yet again, Gary, we see how you hold Trump to different standards than everyone else.
This is so easy! If you had any insight at all you would be embarassed.
In Texas the top elected county executive has the title “County Judge” and the legislative body that most places call Board of Supervisors is in Texas called the “Commissioners’ Court” (the individual legislators are “Commissioners”). Yes it gets confusing that there’s an executive judge and there are judicial court judges.
In the Dallas salon case, the County Judge (who in other states might be called the County Executive) issued an executive order. The judicial court judge that we are here complaining about, who is different from the County Judge (county executive) and is what we traditionally think of as a judge in a court, issued a court oder to require the salon to obey the executive order that was issued by the County Judge (county executive). I have not discovered why the judicial court judge issued such a specific order against that particular salon owner in the first place. That court judge imposed the fine and jail sentence for the salon owner’s failure to comply with the court judge’s order. So the fine and jail is only indirectly for violation of the executive order issued by the County Judge (county executive).
Several County Judges (the executive type) have gone to extremes in clamping down on people’s activities and the state governor and the state attorney general have warned them. One of the governor’s own executive orders specifically prohibits county judges (the executive type) from imposing requirements beyond what the state requirements to try to rein in some of the more excessive actions.
Shelley Luther opened her hair salon despite the fact that it should have remained closed according to Governor Abbott’s orders. According to his orders, hair salons and barber shops were supposed to remain closed until May 18th at the earliest – maybe later if cases start spiking in the state between now and then. Revised orders now say they can open on Friday, I believe.
So basically, the situation seems to have gone something like this:
County Judge: Your shop is supposed to be closed – governor’s orders. Close it down.
Luther: I won’t.
Judicial Judge: Do what the County Judge has told you to do.
Luther: I won’t.
Judicial Judge: Then here’s a fine and some jail time.
There’s a bit more to the story, but that I think that’s the basics of it.
This is my impression of it, too. In addition, she gave her reasons for defying the order:
She told the judge to “do what you gotta do” and accepted the consequences. The judge acted like an officious jerk. People are supporting Luther with a fundraiser.
The outcome seems about right under the circumstances.
Texas has not done what other states have done and emptied their jails and prisons of inmates due to COVID-19 fears, though the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has stopped accepting new inmates from county jails. But those irate at Luther here are part of the Venn diagram in the state of people also angry that inmates haven’t been let out of jail to protect them from coronavirus, while Luther’s supporters look at other states which have freed prisoners and see it as part of a national pattern, where inmates are released while business owners wanting to get back to work are imprisoned.
Well, yeah, that’s just awful.
Actually, this could be considered good news for federalism. The scope of the sentencing judge’s actions is pretty tightly limited. Bad news for the salon owner, and reason for some fear from others in Dallas County. But, that judge can’t do anything to salon owners in the county in which I live 60 miles west of Dallas. Although that judge may control a relatively small force of court marshals to round up people who ignore his orders, to do a widespread roundup he’d need to convince the separately elected Dallas County Sheriff or the separately elected officials of the City of Dallas to deploy the Dallas Police Department.
For contrast, imagine a power hungry US President (say, vice president become president Witmer) with a nationwide army at his or her disposal to enforce his or her whims.
One of the benefits of federalism is that it limits (but doesn’t necessarily prevent) the damage inflicted by bad officials.
Yes, I get that. My point is it doesn’t prevent bad officials from getting elected or appointed. And, at some point, one would hope a better official up the food chain would come down hard on the side of civil liberties against the petty tyrant.
It would be better for the people further down the food chain to do it.
Abbott in recent years has smacked down the city of Austin a couple of times over their loopy rulings, and he and AG Paxton here have protested the Judge’s action against Luther. But state law prevents a Texas governor from issuing a pardon without approval of the state’s Pardons and Parole Board, so this case will have made it’s way through the judicial food chain before any higher-up legal relief could be offered. The only real check here is reaction at the county and judicial district level during state and local elections over the next two years, and that’s up to the people in Dallas County.
Every time I see “Principle at Stake” in my notifications, my mind thinks of people like Savonarola or Thomas Cramner being burned at the stake. Nobody asked, but I’m mentioning it anyway.
Yes, but that can be limited if the official is appointed.
He specifically told her that in order to avoid jail time, she had to APOLOGIZE to the elected officials she had defied. Those elected officials, who are supposed to serve the public, instead have issued dictatorial orders preventing the public from conducting business and feeding their families. This condescending jerk ordered her to bend her knee to those officials, as if they were a ruling elite, instead of public servants accountable to her and the rest of the voters. She accepted the punishment rather than bow to these orders, and because of that I nominate her for patriot of the week.
Government-enforced apologies are a bad thing. I’m also not in favor of heavier sentences meted out to guilty defendants on the basis that those defendants didn’t express proper “contrition.”
Maybe somebody knows of a good defense for that kind of sentencing, but I don’t.
Update: “Texas Supreme Court orders Dallas salon owner released from jail.”
I’m getting tired of conservatives/libertarians who are shocked! shocked! to find out that state and local governments have plenary powers. When did they stop teaching civics in school? State and local governments can and have always been able to regulate behavior at a highly granular level, even down to prohibiting spitting on sidewalks. That’s our system of government. As long as the rules are reasonable and for good cause they will stand up to court challenge. And it is unreasonable and rude to imply that local officials are despots and abusing their authority for trying to do their job to protect the public. An apology is certainly called for.
Cannot like.
It’s the American way to imply that local officials are despots and abusing their authority. Sometimes those implications are unwarranted, but it sometimes takes a while for that to become clear. It is certainly not the American way for people to passively accept rules they don’t like, even when those rules are are good, legal, necessary, and proper.
She got a better result from her action than the Governor or the Judge. Part of your premise is the government action is supposed to protect the public. Please explain how that works here.