Privilege, White and Otherwise

A recent fad among the social justice warriors is to accuse anyone who disagrees with their demands of having led a privileged life where because of their skin color, gender, or financial status they were allowed access to education or opportunities the poor African-Americans/Latinos/LGBTQ minorities and women weren’t.  This, much like the critical race theory, started as a social justice academic theory widely embraced by those seeking something to hang all the social failures on.

An interesting aspect of the recent “hate crime” scandal in Chicago is how little we hear of the privileges afforded a connected black actor.  Here we have an individual with connections back to the former Senator from Illinois and President.  An actor who claimed he was a victim of a hate crime in that den of MAGA politics – Chicago.  When the police investigated – their findings suggested he was the principal organizer of this farce.  He was dutifully charged, arrested and posted a bond to ensure his return to court.

We will never know beyond a reasonable doubt if he was guilty or was truly a victim because while this was playing out in the public arena his political connections were working behind the curtain to have the charges dismissed.  The fact all of the behind the scene players shared a party allegiance makes this scenario all the more credible to the average outside observer.  The telling thing in this negotiation was the charges went away, but he lost his bond money.  If, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the charges were found to be unsupported by the facts why did she keep the bond money and suggest it would go into the coffers of Chicago?  It is almost as if she concluded the actor should pay a small price for wasting the time of the Chicago Police Department.

This is just the simplest of scandals but it reflects clearly why the average middle-class citizen is losing faith in the judicial system because of the obvious double standards of accountability.  When the ideal of equal justice under the law no longer exists, can our government long continue?

Don’t get me wrong, I think privilege exists.  It has always existed but as the term is used in today’s society it has been bastardized to such a point the average woke SJW who uses it as a club really doesn’t have a clue as to where and how actual privilege is determined and applied.

For example, isn’t it the privilege of wealth and connection that afforded those involved in the most recent academic admission scandal to gain access for their children to the colleges of their choice?  The irony is so many of those taking advantage of their privilege were more than happy to tell the rest how we must think and behave to be socially acceptable.

The Rule of Law

There are few things as sadly funny to me as hearing a politician or celebrity come out against something, or someone, with a claim the thing they oppose will discredit or destroy “the rule of law” in this country.  Senator Feinstein is just the latest to claim that President Trump’s calling for an independent investigation of the investigators will undermine our faith in the rule of law.

To see her say we are a nation of laws reminds me she and all her peers believe we are really a nation that chooses what laws we enforce and what laws we ignore when there are political advantages to be gained.  We see that most clearly in the immigration debate, although it is also obvious in the on-going rants on gun ownership.

The civil rights movement in this nation began with the recognition we needed to make laws equal for all persons, not just the rich, the powerful, and the white.  When the civil war ended the winners set out to do that, but it took a renewal of effort in the post-World War II period to overcome the institutional resistance we had built to ensure the white majority could still dominate the minorities. 

Unfortunately, I am not sure we have or ever will achieve the ideal of “blind justice” and have complete equality under the law, for those who are charged with creating, administering, and enforcing the laws are human and subject to the shortcomings of being human.  The interesting outcome of this human condition is now the elite among the minorities appear to be setting out on a path of reverse discrimination where they believe “separate but equal” is a viable option.  I wonder what Thurgood Marshall would think of this approach?  It is almost as if they have come to agree with the whites who really are racist, not just the ones they accuse of being so.

So for the foreseeable future, we will remain a nation that follows the rule of law, kind of, when it’s convenient and self-serving to do so.

Arbitrary and Capricious

Today I saw the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 9^th Circuit Court's ruling in the case of Sessions, Attorney General v Dimaya that section 16 of the 18 U.S. codes was unconstitutionally vague. 

The issue stems from the government’s position that any immigrant, no matter his or her legal status is subject to deportation if convicted of a crime that falls under the definition of “a crime of violence.”  There are a number of statutes in question, including the Immigration and Naturalization Act and Armed Career Criminal Act.  The defendant challenged the law, and his deportation under the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.   The Ninth Circuit sided with the defendant, and the AG engaged to challenge the courts finding at the Supreme Court.

What makes this so interesting to me is that Neil Gorsuch joined the majority in siding with the defendant.  The court’s opinion was written by Justice Kagan and Justice Gorsuch concurred in part and with the judgment of the court.  His opening statement is what rings most important to me.

“Vague laws invite arbitrary power.”

It is good to see the Democratic politician’s hyperbole surrounding his confirmation not bear out.  I believe the role of the Supreme Court is to protect the citizen from the overreach of government.  Justice Gorsuch remains consistent with what he said during his confirmation.  He believes it is his duty to interpret the law as the founders would have us understand it, but if the law is unjust and it affects the citizen his first duty is to protect the citizen.

There will be those who condemn him for this decision, but most of that will be along the political boundaries we have divided ourselves into.

Justice is Just a Word

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.