Day by Day

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Adding to this argument

As to why David Gregory needed to be prosecuted under D.C.'s gun laws.

Why is the law important? If Gregory clearly violated the law, but there is no interest to be served in prosecuting him, doesn't that prove that the law is not important? If the precise thing that he did — which is clearly what is defined as a crime — raises no interest in prosecution, how can we be satisfied by letting this one nice famous man go? Rewrite the law so that it only covers the activity that the government believes deserves prosecution, so there is equal justice under the law.

Let me add my two cents to that - If the law is so unimportant that the D.C. police can't be bothered to enforce it when one of the political favorites violates it, then I have no interest in following ANY of the laws of D.C., because they've just proven that rather than being based in objective reality and moral certainty, the laws of D.C. are subjective, capricious and based on political favoritism.  And since their laws are subjective, capricious and based on political favoritism, I do not have the obligation to follow them that I would have with objective laws based on moral certainty.

Now, add in the fact that the Attorney General refusing to prosecute the politically favored David Gregory is a friend of David Gregory and his wife....

Nobody has an obligation to follow rules written by and for the new monarchy of D.C.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Well this is going to be great for the legal profession. When they have a defendant they will use the David Gregory defense to get their clients off.