Oopsie . . . Too late.<\/a>\u201c<\/p>\nFor some, this might seem like another news item that will just as quickly be replaced by another. It likely will be. For others, the details may read a bit like a reality tv show or opening to a B-rated political thriller. And they do. And for others this post may read like yet another woke, anti-Trump diatribe. It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an anti \u201canyone-who-would-do-this-kind-of-thing\u201d post. And as Americans I believe we shouldn\u2019t dismiss it or treat it lightly. <\/p>\n
I believe there is a reason why this occurred during the weekend when the regular news cycle was sleeping. I believe there is a reason why this involves a relatively small number of undocumented immigrants among the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. And I believe there is a reason why this involves suspected members of a foreign gang.<\/p>\n
This wasn\u2019t happenstance. This was vetted to yield the greatest degree of indifference possible, and for those who might have taken notice, well they\u2019re pro-cartel, violence supporting, near-do-wells anyway.<\/p>\n
But we should care. We should care deeply. Because I believe it marks the first shot in a war that may potentially tear this country apart at the seams. We\u2019ve all read (and seen) the White House meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump, and Vice President Vance. We\u2019ve read about the firings by DOGE. And we\u2019re seeing the impacts of President Trump\u2019s tariffs. All of these things involve important public policy issues. What occurred today, however, is fundamentally different. It involves the potential unraveling of the very fabric of our country: The rule of law.\u00a0<\/p>\n
John Adams is often paraphrased as saying that we are \u201ca country of laws, not kings\u201d (Adams actually said we are \u201ca government of laws, and not men\u201d and, apparently, he took it from a guy named James Harrington). Checks and balances, as we all learned in school, is the means by which we secure the sanctity of the rule of law: Congress enacts the laws, the Executive branch applies the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets those laws. Harrington, who I need to read more about, used the metaphor \u201ctwo girls cutting a cake. One cuts and the other chooses, making a fair division likely.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Americans we take this truth about our republic to be, well, \u201cself evident,\u201d yet we rarely take into consideration its fragility. It\u2019s fragile because its entire underpinning (like the paper we call money) is a social construct \u2013 Thomas Hobbe\u2019s so-called \u201csocial contract\u201d \u2013 that depends on everyone agreeing on the rules we will live by. Once someone decides not to play by those rules, in particular those with immense power (i.e., the President), the social contract is broken and, as Hobbe\u2019s said, we revert back to a \u201cstate of nature\u201d which for most tends to be \u201csolitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.\u201d<\/p>\n
Let me give you an example. I was once involved in a real estate case involving a partnership. Like many partnerships there was the \u201cmoney\u201d guy and the \u201csweat-equity\u201d guy. The partners got along swell at first. Then they didn\u2019t. What they were fighting about isn\u2019t important. What is more important, is that the sweat-equity guy, and his counsel at the time, tried to take every advantage they could and their overall strategy seemed to simply be fight, fight, fight. They refused to respond to discovery. They filed numerous motions. They made arguments that didn\u2019t comport with the law or accurately represent the facts.<\/p>\n
In short, it was a hard-fought case. But many cases are like that. What made this case unusual is that while the case was pending, the sweat-equity guy\u2019s attorney withdrew as counsel, leaving the sweat-equity guy to represent himself personally or in pro per<\/em>. This is when things got really wild. The sweat-equity guy filed pleadings that weren\u2019t permitted. His pleadings were nearly impossible to understand. And, as a result, he lost. Again and again.\u00a0<\/p>\nThis would seem to bode well for my client. It didn\u2019t. He never complied with a single court order. The court would order him to produce documents. He didn\u2019t. The court would order him to allow access to the property. He would lock it up. He was ordered to pay monetary sanctions by the court. He didn\u2019t pay. Ultimately, I had to ask the court for a bench warrant to ask that he comply with the court\u2019s orders or be taken into custody. Unfortunately, he used a P.O. Box and he had such a common name there was no way to find him. When I complained to the court, the judge basically told me, \u201cWhat would you have me do, go out and track down the guy and have him arrested personally?\u201d<\/p>\n
It was then that it dawned on me. The rule of law is fragile. It depends on everyone playing by the same rules, win, lose, or draw. And if someone doesn\u2019t, well, it\u2019s Hobbe\u2019s \u201cstate of nature\u201d or anarchy, where each person simply does as he likes. And in anarchy, only the strongest get to do as they like, as the rest of us meekly follow along.<\/p>\n
Despots do well in these kinds of environments. But as history tells us it\u2019s also why sooner or later, in one way or another, even depots get overthrown, often by a stronger despot although occasionally through revolutions, as our own country\u2019s history has shown. But revolution, which requires the will and coordination of many, is the exception rather than the rule. It also takes a long time. Which is why it took our country\u2019s forbearers nearly 200 years before they were pissed off enough and organized enough to start the American Revolution.<\/p>\n
Whether this latest incident was just an \u201cOopsie\u201d is something we\u2019ll have to wait and see. I\u2019m concerned that it isn\u2019t. I\u2019m concerned that it\u2019s a resilience test on our checks and balances along the lines of \u201cyou and what army?\u201d If it is, we, and I do mean \u201cwe\u201d as an in \u201cus\u201d collectively, will in all likelihood lose. The Judicial branch doesn\u2019t have an effective enforcement arm. It has the U.S. Marshal\u2019s Service but it\u2019s under control of the Department of Justice. Both houses of Congress are currently controlled by the President\u2019s party which he appears to have firm grip over, and even if this wasn\u2019t the case, Congress has no enforcement arm at all.<\/p>\n
Battles are sometimes lost without a shot being fired, and if the new rules are that there aren\u2019t any and this is purely about raw power alone, my fear is that the response by Congress and the Judiciary will be no response at all because they know there\u2019s nothing they can do. If that\u2019s the case, then God help us all.<\/p>\n
\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n