We are
bombarded by concerns about justice, social and otherwise, but what is
justice? Apparently, it is a lot like
beauty. One man’s justice is another
man’s injustice. For a moment consider
what it takes to claim to be a just and fair nation operating under the rule of
law. Then consider how far we can stray
as one segment or another of society and the legal system move from a common
ideal to their preferred approach.
“I’ve got a
pen, and I’ve got a phone.” A declaration by President Obama he did not intend
to allow the Congress to slow down his administration as he did those things he
thought would strengthen his position, the position of his party, the position of
his supporters, and perhaps the United States.
At the time, I remember thinking, “Boy, that is a bad idea, because he
is setting a standard for his successor.”
As we enter this new era where President-elect Trump will enter the oval
office we can expect a huge outcry from the left as he carries on and perhaps
expands the tradition of rule by executive order.
The past
eight years have seen the administration use the full scope of its executive
branch to attack its political opponents.
Remember the time the IRS set out to restrict tax exempt status for
conservative organizations? How about
the time the DOJ has injected itself into state investigations to make sure the
President’s agenda was pushed, or the time they sold assault weapons to the
cartels? Most recently we hear a report
of a “rogue” employee for Homeland Security attempting to hack into the state
of Georgia’s election system. Sorry, but
that rogue employee ruse was used by the IRS so there is little credibility remaining
with this administration. All these
things, once created, will remain. We’ve
already seen the President-elect’s staff ask for the names of bureaucrats and
scientists who have been at the leading edge of pushing the climate change data
President Obama labeled as his top agenda item.
The funny
thing is there are those on the right who are comfortable with this. The same
people who were uncomfortable when the Obama administration began the process
are now on-board. Just as interesting is
the outrage of the left, who were completely on-board with the previous
administration. In both cases, we are
moving further and further from where the rule of law holds our society
together.
Let’s talk
about laws for a moment. I imagine most
pre-millennials will remember the Schoolhouse Rock, series that explained in
simple terms how an idea progressed into a law.
But that is only 1/3 of the equation.
For a law to be effective it must be administered fairly and judged
impartially. I am afraid we are seeing a
breakdown in both the exercise of enforcement, and the impartiality of the judicial
system that is charged with the administration of the law. There are a number of possible examples, but for
this purpose I will look at gun control, since it provides the most heated
approach on both sides of the center.
One the one
hand there are those who would want absolutely no control over the ownership
and use of any kind of fire arm, on the opposite extreme there are those who
would like to see all guns removed from American civil society. I think even this extreme still sees the need
for guns in the military and perhaps the police, but for everyone else gun
ownership should be illegal. Both
extremes are very small percentages, but at the end of the day they seem to be
the loudest heard. Holding aside the
debate regarding our right to own guns, let’s only look at would a new law make
the possibility of gun violence less?
Those who
favor more gun control will obviously say yes, those who oppose, no. The problem is a law is only words on a
paper. It falls to the humans who are
involved in enforcement, the politicians who control and fund them, and the
judges and juries who make a determination on application for a law to have any
effect. We never hear about the complexity
of making a law work all we ever hear about is “we need a new law,” or “no, we
don’t need a new law.”
Over the past
eight years we have seen the DOJ selectively break or enforce the laws on gun
control, and then stonewall the Congress as they investigated their
actions. Individual acts aside, there
has got to be an overall negative affect on the general population over the
impartiality of the DOJ on this issue.
Then at the state and local levels we have seen the enforcement of the
existing laws expand or contract depending on the politicians and their
political affiliations. If enforcement
of the law is not uniform it can’t be effective, when this is the case no law
on earth is worth the paper it is written on.
Finally,
there is a judicial system that provides a non-uniform application of the law
to the defendants brought before the bench.
We’ve seen much in the news about the bias of southern courts where a
white defendant will receive a lesser sentence then a black, but the same holds
true for northern courts as well, it is just not as well published. Another variable is personal judicial bias. It a judge puts their desire for social
justice above the fair application of the law they are creating an uneven
playing field, to the same degree as a judge who puts race ahead of the facts.
Without a
fair and evenly applied enforcement arm, and trusted judicial system, justice
is just a word. As we have seen, it appears to be less important to more
people each day.
No comments:
Post a Comment