American Greatness: In recent weeks, the story of the wife of a U.S. Marine who was forced to leave the country because she was an illegal alien tugged at our collective heartstrings. Stories like this give even the strongest Trump supporters pause. While this instinctive sympathy for the Marine’s plight shows that we are human, it doesn’t change the fact that cold-hearted law enforcement is good policy.
It is true that the administration could keep an eye out for such special cases and intervene to avoid having them stir up controversy and second guessing. Doing so would be a mistake, however. These hard stories can be helpful, even if the conventional opinion is that they show how “mean” Trump’s administration is. The ruthlessness involved in absolute unbiased enforcement of the laws has a certain appeal.
Perhaps it is appealing because it runs contrary to the “compassionate conservatism” that, not least because of its arbitrary application, has been so destructive.
Perhaps the appeal stems from the way it thumbs the nose at the Left, since they will always present enforcing the laws as “mean.”
Perhaps it is that these stories seem to convey that Trump is actually serious and aggressive about the standing for the rule of law and protecting American citizens, no matter the conventional opinion.
Or perhaps it is because the only other options are not to enforce the laws or to abuse the notion of discretion. Simply ignoring the laws has been politically expedient in the past. So has twisting discretion. We’ve seen before, with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, when President Obama stretched executive discretion into something far beyond what it should be—something that looked like law making by executive fiat, not the faithful execution of the laws.
But responding in sympathy respecting extreme cases is not the same as a blanket DACA policy, you might say. True. One might add that it is good that the executive has some latitude to determine the best way to enforce the law, and this includes the discretion to overlook some infractions in some instances for extreme circumstances. This is also true.
But sympathy for criminals does not seem like a good enough reason to overlook a crime. more here
Cold-hearted application of laws has another aspect that is somewhat beneficial: publicity of a bad law’s enforcement may help in repealing or amending a bad law.
But it is also quite possible to write laws with provisions for discretion in their application. At the very least, restricting or eliminating mandatory minimum fines and prison sentences would allow for the enforcement of a law to be mitigated when circumstances show that full penalties would be unjust.
Lady Justice is typically depicted wearing a blindfold, suggesting the equality and impartiality of our legal system. Unfortunately, that blindfold was replaced during the obama administration with a pair of blue ‘seizure glasses.’
Presently, there is no equality of justice in our country. clinton hasn’t been charged with anything, lerner retired with full pension, the doj/fbi are entirely corrupt, and msm spreads lies on a daily basis.
“But sympathy for criminals does not seem like a good enough reason to overlook a crime.”
The excuse used to be (maybe still is) that there weren’t enough resources to go after the petty offender. Over time, however, the list of petty offenses has grown into a complete lawlessness and the beneficiaries are those who repeatedly break the law. And the petty crimes now include DUI, hit-and-run, rape, felony assault and murder — the proof of this is found in sentencing of recent cases. And now there’s the distinct possibility the FBI and DoJ are actively enabling crime.
Setting aside deep thoughts about ideologies, common sense demands that we stop ignoring the conventional wisdom of how sh*tholes become literal sh*tholes in the first place. I mean, if certain pols can’t concede that pooping in a city in any place other than some kind of toilet should be illegal and the poopers made to stop doing it, that’s a problem that needs to be voted out of office. What the hell does it say when San Fran and environs have to shell out nearly $200K per employee and put their crap cleaning detail in sealed hazmat suits in order to perform their jobs? They are apparently conceding the dangers of coming into contact with someone’s dung, but not the crime.
It’s called equal application of the law!
DISPSSIONATE: not influenced by strong feeling; not affected by personal or emotional involvement
Odd that the “justice” figure on the front page ISN’T blindfolded…
“Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance… but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
I can state as a stone cold natural fact that leftist activists are perpetually looking for hard cases that they can exploit to drive their agenda forward. I have done a LOT of advocacy on behalf of individuals with disabilities that affect their mobility. As such I have spent a LOT of time in meetings in which opportunists posing as advocates for these same individuals have been present. THey speak quite freely when they are out of the public eye and openly discuss how they can use the misfortune of others to their advantage. I am not saying that they are universally opportunists and little more, but they are present
I am not saying that they are universally opportunists and little more, but they are present in large numbers and when present in a critical mass they are constantly angling to put together a coalition that allows them to seize control over the movement and use those they purport to care about to further their own agenda.
The same laws that apply to the rest of us also apply to Cankles.