No one has been a more uncritical cheerleader for the Obama administration than liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan. Now, Sullivan has gotten his reward, courtesy of Obama's Department of Justice.
Sullivan was caught smoking marijuana in a National Park and was prosecuted, consistent with the usual policy of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. But Sullivan's pull with the Obama administration got him a sweetheart deal: the U.S. Attorney decided to drop the charges, even though there evidently is no doubt about Sullivan's guilt. The issue here isn't whether marijuana possession should be illegal, or should be prosecuted. It is illegal, and the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts does routinely prosecute such cases. But not Sullivan: Barack Obama and Eric Holder paid him off for his slavish devotion.
Here's what United States Magistrate Judge Robert Collings thought about the charges being dropped. Excerpts:
When the case was called, the Court expressed its concern that a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law. The Court noted that persons charged with the same offense on the Cape Cod National Seashore were routinely given violation notices, and if they did not agree to forfeit collateral, were prosecuted by the United States Attorney. In short, the Court explained that there was no apparent reason for treating Mr. Sullivan differently from other persons charged with the same offense. In fact, there were other persons who were required to appear on the September 2nd docket who were charged with the same offense and were being prosecuted. ...
[T]he Court would not be concerned with any exercise of discretion by the United States Attorney not to prosecute the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The United States Attorney certainly has discretion to determine how best to allocate the resources of his office and could, if he deemed it appropriate, elect to focus those resources on more serious crimes while declining to prosecute the type of violation which Mr. Sullivan faces. However, from all that appears, the United States Attorney has not taken the position that persons who possess marijuana on federal property will not be prosecuted; rather, those persons are prosecuted routinely. ...
In the Court's view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances. ...
In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.
Via Patterico, we get the best and most damning commentary on the sordid affair:
This is my “Okay, I’ll post about Andrew Sullivan if you stop writing me about him” post.
Via the Internet Scofflaw, we learned that Andrew Sullivan once sanctimoniously wrote:My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.
So when Andrew Sullivan gets busted for something, he will of course demand to be prosecuted if those less powerful than he are also being prosecuted. Right?
Heh.
Heh indeed. I guess Orwell was right—"Some animals are more equal than others." Dennis Prager is always stating that being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. How right he is.
But this Boston Globe piece contains by far, BY FAR, the most absurd comment:
When Collings asked Lang and Delahunt why Sullivan should be treated differently from other defendants charged with possessing marijuana on federal property, the lawyers explained that Sullivan was a British citizen applying for a certain immigration status and that the $125 penalty could imperil his application, according to Collings’s ruling.
Now... there's a reason to drop a charge against someone! Because imposing a penalty might penalize them! Can you imagine that defense? "Your Honor, sending my client to prison will affect his ability to earn an income to support his family." We could call it the Jesse James defense.
Commentator Rod Dreher is riding the fence as usual...
Do I think it would be unjust to keep Andrew Sullivan from becoming an American citizen because he was arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana? Yes I do, and at a certain level I'm glad this pot bust won't be counted against him. But I am more troubled by the idea that a famous and well-connected person received special treatment in a criminal matter, for no apparent reason other than he's famous and well-connected. I look forward to Sullivan's account of this matter.
How'd he do that—sleight of hand? How can Mr. Dreher be "glad this pot bust won't be counted against him" and yet "troubled" by the special treatment? He seems to feel a little different about Sullivan's pot use than, oh... Michael Phelps, for instance. (I wonder if Andrew Sullivan has a big poster of Michael Phelps on his bedroom wall?) But the incident has had a good effect on Mr. Dreher in that it seems to caused a maturation with regards to ad hominum attacks...[A] couple of you are using this incident as an excuse to discount anything Sullivan has to say about anything as invalid. That's argumentum ad hominem nonsense.
We look forward to Mr. Dreher's application of this principle to the teaching authority of the Bishops of the Catholic Church. But this is not the first time he's pled for a special privilege on the part of Mr. Sullivan.
Meanwhile, if you happen to get busted for pot possession, you might try talking with a gay British accent. It's at least worth a shot.
(H/T goes to pikkumatti.)
No comments:
Post a Comment