As should be clear by now, I consider denouncing and struggling against puerile "Libertarian" punks like Rand Paul to be just fine and dandy, whereas, more often than not, I will defend someone like Elena Kagan -- or even Arch She Demon Hillary Clinton -- when others are denouncing and struggling against them.
And the difference is....?
Bystander suggested I might be channeling TBogg. I'm sure TBogg would not be channeling my own self!
Meanwhile, there are far more important and fundamental issues before us than this or that individual getting wrung through the Wringer of Scrutiny on a blog post or on national teevee.
For some time I have been making the point that our so-called Justice system is grossly corrupt and politicized to the point of being merely the simulacrum of Justice, not the real thing at all, not even remotely so. And that the Federal system lost all credibility when the Supreme Court sacrificed its integrity to lawlessly decide the election of 2000.
It's been downhill ever since. And yes, I know there were many faults in the system prior to 2000. I know.
Well, Scott Horton has a post up at No Comment "Montesquieu—Tyranny in the Shadow of the Law" which I think encapsulates our overall dilemma when it comes to the very conception of Justice in this country today. It wears the mask of the Law, but it is under the control of certain powerful men and interests. It is, forthrightly, a tyranny, in service to tyranny.
Il n’y a point de plus cruelle tyrannie que celle que l’on exerce à l’ombre des lois et avec les couleurs de la justice...
Indeed.
Let us go now and ponder.
(h/t for the phrase -- which I haven't heard since high school -- to coram nobis over at Glenn's Place.)
