You've probably heard the term lawfare, defined as "(noun) 1. the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent; 2. the use of the law by a country against its enemies, esp by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy." It is also the name of a popular website presenting essays on the use of law for political, military, and policy purposes.
Lawfare is indeed a thing, and it's being used every day by a government weaponized against its citizens by a president and a party that used to complain bitterly about a government they believed was weaponized against them, simply because they chose to ignore inconvenient laws.
In a representative democracy, the sort that we used to have, laws exist to protect the rights of the citizens and provide a stable legal environment in which business can flourish. But the law by itself is the proverbial double-edged sword: it tells us what we are allowed to do, but it does not tell us what we should do.
Consider the rush in Texas to conduct an out-of-constitutional-cycle gerrymander of congressional districts to favor Republican candidates. This blatant attempt to cement a congressional Republican majority had a predictable tit-for-tat result, with populous (and solidly blue) California threatening to gerrymander its own districts if Texas does so, in order to ensure perpetual Democratic seats and cancel out the Republican advantage.
The Supreme Court has ruled (Rucho v Common Cause, 18-422, June 27, 2019) that gerrymandering for political advantage is legal ... odious and undemocratic, perhaps, but nevertheless legal. Considered in light of the actions of Texas and California, it demonstrates lawfare at both the state and the federal level. And I would argue that lawfare is what is replacing the rule of law that once made America unique.
The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are engraved over the entrance to the Supreme Court ...
... and yet we see that justice is hardly equal. As an example, look at the case of the man recently arrested and charged with felony assault for throwing a sandwich* at a Customs and Border Patrol agent last week. A federal judge permitted assault charges to be filed after a local judge declined to press charges; the man is currently free on bail and faces up to eight years in prison. You may recall that Der Furor has pardoned and lionized dozens of individuals who vandalized the Capitol, savagely beat police officers (with an American flag on a pole, no less), and attempted to overthrow the results of the 2024 election in the January 6th riot.
Who's weaponizing the government against whom?
Der Furor is the most litigious president in our history. He has spent his entire career using the law as a weapon, deploying battalions of lawyers to tie up his opponents in costly and time-consuming litigation, the goal of which is often less to win than to financially ruin his targets. He recently sued the Wall Street Journal for a staggering $10 billion dollars over the newspaper's report that his name was on a 2003 birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared. He has sued individuals and businesses relentlessly for decades, never admitting guilt or fault even when judgements go against him. His immediate reaction to any loss is to appeal, and to carry those appeals to the highest possible court, using his time-honored strategy of Deny, Deflect, and Delay. His strategy of endless delays and appeals is intended to wear down his opponents, and proves the truth of the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. And you can only imagine how much good could be done with the time, money, and energy expended on his frivolous lawfare.
It's no secret that I detest Der Furor and despise the class of lawyers willing to enable him and his like. If Der Furor is lawfare's commanding general, the divisions of amoral lawyers who conduct lawfare on his behalf are its foot soldiers.
And we are its collateral damage.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
* Some commentators suggested that the man be charged with "assault with a deli weapon."
P.S. - in case you're interested, the illustration I used in today's post was generated by my request to Chat GPT to draw me a picture of a weapon made out of the Constitution. I thought it was appropriate to the topic.
.jpg)
