By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former special counsel Jack Smith expressed deep concern regarding the current state of the rule of law, stating it is “under attack” like never before. Smith highlighted instances of the Justice Department’s diminished credibility, citing the dismissal of career public servants and the perceived erosion of nonpartisan enforcement. He noted that political opponents and perceived enemies are targeted for investigation, while those close to the president face no such scrutiny. Smith’s remarks emphasized the critical importance of equal application and enforcement of the law for all citizens.
Read the original article here
Former special counsel Jack Smith warns that rule of law is ‘under attack’, a statement that, frankly, resonates with a deep sense of “no kidding” for many. The very act of a former special counsel making such a pronouncement underscores the gravity of the situation, and the chorus of “duh” that seems to follow it suggests that the warning isn’t exactly breaking news. It’s more like confirmation of a long-held fear, a societal consensus that has been brewing for quite some time.
The sentiment, echoed across the board, seems to be one of belated awareness. Many seem to be asking why it took so long for this alarm to be sounded. The criticism seems to be based on the idea that action should have been more timely, that the threats to the rule of law were apparent far earlier, and perhaps that preventative measures could have been more effective. It’s a clear indication of frustration – frustration with the erosion of established norms and the perceived inaction in the face of it.
One sentiment appears to be that the ship has sailed and the horse has already bolted. The belief is that the damage has already been done, and the rule of law is, at best, severely wounded and at worst, deceased. There is a sense of helplessness in the responses, as if the processes designed to uphold justice have become fundamentally compromised. The repeated use of phrases like “dead and buried” is telling.
The issue isn’t just about the individuals, but also the system itself. The critiques extend to the very foundation upon which the legal framework is built. The system is perceived to be designed on “good faith” but that has since “ceased to exist.” This suggests a deep-seated distrust, where the mechanisms that were once believed to be impartial are now viewed as being subject to manipulation and partisan interests. This is where the “rule by law” versus “rule of law” argument comes into play. The law, in this view, has become a tool wielded by those in power, rather than a neutral arbiter of justice.
The responses also touch on the selective enforcement of the law. The idea that those in power can “get away with anything” if they align with the right political party is a scathing indictment of the current state of affairs. The law is not applied equally, which is, of course, the fundamental concept of justice. This perception of bias undermines the integrity of the entire system.
The perception of this bias is particularly evident when considering the actions of individuals in positions of authority. There’s a focus on perceived wrongdoings, which, again, contributes to the feeling that the legal system is actively being undermined. The system, it appears, is seen as a tool for the powerful, not a shield for the vulnerable.
There is also a cynical view that the warning may be self-serving. The suggestion that a book or new content might be available suggests some believe that this statement is a bid for relevance, capitalizing on a situation to gain attention or professional benefit. The idea is that the moment to act was long ago, and that the warning at this point serves another purpose, rather than a genuine desire to preserve the rule of law.
Overall, the responses portray a society already living with the consequences. It reflects a profound skepticism about the ability of the legal system to function as intended, and a sense that the fundamental principles of fairness and justice are under siege. It is, above all, an acknowledgment of failure.