It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!
