Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Lawfare Perceptions?

Full Size Tabby
@FullSizeTabby
Join to bookmark41likesJoin to like27comments

A perception is building among many people that the political elites are applying the law unevenly against people inconvenient to the political elites while favoring people the political elites favor. That perception is not without reason.

I bring this up now because at the State of the Union speech Thursday night a Gold Star father was arrested (not just ejected from the room) after he made an outburst inconvenient to the political elites. https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-removed-from-sotu-for-shouting-united-states-marines-at-biden

This happened while people who chanted pro-Biden phrases remained undisturbed.

Past episodes people point to include:

As a lawyer I can follow the details of the law and how each of these cases individually might be justifiable and meet the particular terms of the law. There have been many informative discussions here on Ricochet about such details. This thread is not to continue those detailed discussions. If you want to review or to discuss those details, find those threads.

I also know that there are now so many laws on the books that every person in America could probably be charged daily for violating something. See the book, Three Felonies a Day. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25PCTI8S0JS66&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.BfRz7lqpNtJ-JY74OPzw49sqUGuVLttl8y3gpumztEQ.zqtaTIklnzzgOHFa2bvxL-Xm2CcHyvsuoeKhaAtJf68&dib_tag=se&keywords=three+felonies+a+day+how+the+feds+target+the+innocent&qid=1710003461&s=books&sprefix=three+felon%2Cstripbooks%2C94&sr=1-1

My professional career in law was trying to keep my clients (generally large corporations) away from courtrooms. I was usually more interested in larger trends and identifying big threats than I was in the details of which side of a fine line of the law we were on. And explaining the law in broad terms to corporate executives for whom the law was but one of many factors on their minds.

From that experience I can also understand how people who are not lawyers are not into the details of the individual cases, but might see patterns that suggest uneven application of the law in the above incidents. They might see the possibility that those charges likely would not have been brought but for who those people are or what causes they support. Especially when people see the contrast of no apparent legal consequences:

  • For people who disturbed the State of the Union speech by chanting pro-Biden phrases
  • for people who trespass, parade, and take over government property for reasons the political elites like (teacher protests, Hamas, climate activism, etc.)
  • for people who enter the country illegally
  • for people who beat up police officers
  • for people who destroy government buildings when protesting against police
  • for people who steal or destroy the property of other people.
  • for people who attack pro-life pregnancy centers
  • for people who block people from living their normal lives while protesting for causes the political elites like, such as Hamas or climate activism.

I don’t think people are being unreasonable when they worry that, between the vast number of laws they are expected to follow and an appearance that those laws are unevenly applied depending on whether a person is convenient or inconvenient to political elites, they could suddenly find themselves targeted based on their beliefs or politics. It is not the details of each case that matters to them. It is the perceived general appearance of uneven application of the law. That is bad for upholding the principle of “rule of law” upon which a constitutional republic depends. When a substantial portion of the public loses confidence that the law is applied with some level of evenness, using the law for its intended purposes becomes difficult. And once lost, that confidence is hard to rebuild.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (27)

  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens

    It is not appearance, it is fact.

  • Chris O@ChrisO
    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    It is the perceived general appearance of uneven application of the law. That is bad for upholding the principle of “rule of law” upon which a constitutional republic depends. When a substantial portion of the public loses confidence that the law is applied with some level of evenness, using the law for its intended purposes becomes difficult.

    It becomes unjustified. When laws are not applied evenly justice is absent. When justice is absent, no law need be followed until justice is restored. We can't even call what is happening civil disobedience, because we (Obama) jailed a YouTube creator as a scapegoat for Bengazi. He did nothing but creatively express an opinion. More recently, it was someone who created memes.

    The system works as long as it isn't abused. It's been abused for years, FST, and it's getting worse week by week. It can be restored, but people have to recognize the reality of what's happening.

  • Banned Member@DrewInWisconsin
    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    When a substantial portion of the public loses confidence that the law is applied with some level of evenness, using the law for its intended purposes becomes difficult. And once lost, that confidence is hard to rebuild.

    Nigh impossible.

    At least, not without a complete top to bottom reform of the justice system in this country. By which I mean all existing structures must be uprooted and thrown in the fire, to be replaced by something new which has the people's confidence. And I'm not sure what that looks like, but I know the current system cannot be salvaged.

  • Banned Member@DrewInWisconsin

    Reminded of this: "Not law but fraud."

    (Blatant self-promotion above.)

    “My enemy is not the law,” he found himself saying under his breath as he walked — talking to himself was not a good sign — “but the enemy of the law, against which the law is too weak to defend itself. If the law is complicit in crime, is it the law? If, when not complicit, it not only fails to protect but proscribes self-protection, then it is not law but fraud. Anarchy arises not from those who defend themselves by natural right, but from officials who fail in their calling, look the other way, succumb to threats and blackmail, or who are themselves criminal. If without defending me the law says I can’t defend myself, it is no longer the law, and I have to defy it.”

  • kedavis@kedavis
    ReplyingtoDrewInWisconsin, Œuf

    DrewInWisconsin, Œuf (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    When a substantial portion of the public loses confidence that the law is applied with some level of evenness, using the law for its intended purposes becomes difficult. And once lost, that confidence is hard to rebuild.

    Nigh impossible.

    At least, not without a complete top to bottom reform of the justice system in this country. By which I mean all existing structures must be uprooted and thrown in the fire, to be replaced by something new which has the people’s confidence. And I’m not sure what that looks like, but I know the current system cannot be salvaged.

    The current structure might still be valid, but that doesn't mean all the current occupants of the structure don't need to be uprooted and thrown in the fire.

Scroll for later comments
+22 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 27 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.