It was only a matter of time before the "not my president" sentiment would progress down the slippery slope on which it precipitously sat.
The very foundation of our government is a respect for the rule of law, and when anybody vocalizes refusal to accept a lawfully elected president, they undermine that foundation.
Last week a state representative in Massachusetts openly applied a "not my laws" attitude about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity by warning about an ICE raid on her Facebook page, and instructing undocumented residents on how to avoid detection.
ICE is a department within Homeland Security, second in size as a criminal investigative agency only to the FBI. Its organizational structure reflects its purpose and mission to investigate serious issues that threaten national security, including human smuggling and trafficking, child exploitation, drug and weapons trafficking, trans-national gangs, cybercrimes and child pornography, and more. The criminals involved in such activities are dangerous, and ICE agents often have perilous jobs.
The Brockton, Mass., lawmaker trying to tip off locals about a raid (which turned out to be a false rumor) wasn't thinking about the risks ICE investigators take, or the danger her post might create for agents. She simply thought the immigration laws don't need to be enforced. Not constituting a national security risk, undocumented housekeepers or babysitters rarely find themselves in ICE crosshairs.
As the local ICE official noted, their operations aren't random, but lead-driven and targeted to prioritize individuals posing risks to local communities. Such examples would include "known street gang members, child sex offenders, and deportable foreign nationals with significant drug trafficking convictions," he said.
The whole farce that immigration policy has become started with not enforcing the law, and that basic premise helped propel the national backlash that sent Donald Trump to the White House.
On another face of the slippery slope, we just witnessed a highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court get criticized for repeatedly "taking the side" of employers over workers.
Federal appellate judges aren't supposed to take sides. They're supposed to apply the law. If the law leans to one side or another too improperly, blame the legislature. Absent a constitutional violation, unelected judges who seek to insert their own opinions--political or otherwise--are essentially minor despots.
The "not my nominee" mindset as applied to Judge Neil Gorsuch by leading Democratic senators isn't rooted in any serious objection. The truck-driver case cited by his opponents is a ruse. Appellate courts aren't "finders of fact," so they don't review cases on the merits. All the lawyers sitting in the Senate know and understand this.
So howls of condemnation about putting the driver at risk are disingenuous if not totally dishonest. No judge on the 10th Circuit considered or ruled whether the truck driver was treated properly with regard to his safety.
The only thing considered was whether the driver's termination was legal or illegal under the whistle-blower provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, which says an individual cannot be terminated for "refusal to operate a vehicle" as a matter of safety concerns. The appellate court ruled the termination illegal. In dissenting, Judge Gorsuch only argued that the case didn't properly fit the whistle-blower act's criteria.
It's historical fact that no nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been filibustered, but that didn't matter to Senate Democrats of the "not my ..." persuasion. Their irreverence on the subject is likely to result in Senate Republicans changing the 60-vote tradition to a simple majority rule. Gorsuch's confirmation in that manner might come as early as today.
Does the wanton partisanship weaken two centuries of cooperative wisdom in Supreme Court senatorial confirmations? Absolutely.
The silliness of it all is that Gorsuch was never going to unbalance the Supreme Court. The next nominee very well might, however, depending on which justice retires or dies, and which party controls the Senate.
If we are to remain a nation of laws, which is the distinction responsible for our enduring republic, we need to banish the negative personal pronoun. "Not my" this or that sends the wrong signal, sets the wrong example, and ultimately spells disaster for the rule of law.
Too risky
The proliferation of smartphones is unparalleled in U.S. technology product development. But such blinding success and explosive growth has been accompanied by a deepening shadow.
It's easy to put a powerful communications device in the hands of consumers. It's proving much harder to instill responsible wisdom in their brains while they're driving. We have to call this spade a spade: There's an epidemic of texting while driving, and few are those readers who can claim total abstinence.
The recent bus crash in southwestern Texas that claimed 13 lives is just another in a growing example pool in which a trucker or other motorist witnessed a texting driver wandering over lane lines prior to a collision.
It's a deadly double dynamic: Young people are the most consumed by texting and also the least experienced behind the wheel. One of the most important things you can emphatically teach your kids (and yourself): Don't text while driving. Please.
------------v------------
Dana D. Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.
Editorial on 04/07/2017