, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wendy’s, caught up in a “mostly peaceful protest”…

Justice.  It’s much bandied about these days, and usually preceded by an adjective.  A few examples:

Social justice

Climate justice

Racial justice

Gender justice

Trans justice

Environmental justice

Health justice

And the list goes on and on to the point justice barely means anything anymore, yet it must.  Dictionary.com defines it thus:


*the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

*rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

*the moral principle determining just conduct.

conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment: Victims of rape and sexual assault have the right to the evidence they need to seek justice.

*just treatment of all members of society with regard to a specified public issue, including equitable distribution of resources and participation in decision-making (usually used in combination): Environmental justice means that all people, regardless of race or income, have the right to a clean and healthy environment.A group of moms in the Bridgeton area are advocating for health justice for those living around the landfills.When we speak of climate justice, we demonstrate our sensitivity and resolve to secure the future of the poor from the perils of natural disasters.

*the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

These definitions, I suspect, would seem foreign to most Americans, essentially nonsensical, particularly the first and fourth because they include “equity,” which has come to mean anything but a traditional, rational understanding of justice.  “Equity” in fact represents discrimination, and is a telltale for actual racism, because its definition and application change to achieve whatever D/S/C policy is in favor at the moment.  Black people used to be the primary beneficiaries of equity, but they were recently shunted aside by trans whatevers, securing their primacy of equity being an “existential” goal of the Biden meat puppet administration.  Pretty much everything is an “existential” threat or crisis for them.

“Equity” has nothing whatever in common with “equality,” because equality consists of ensuring all have equal opportunity, and their outcome depends on merit: intelligence, hard work, determination, ability and the willingness to delay immediate gratification.  Such people work for what they get, and don’t believe anyone owes them anything.  As the classic commercial said, everything they have they got the old-fashioned way: they earn it.  Equity, however, is all about equality of outcome, which means merit is meaningless, its beneficiaries are owed by everyone, and anyone who actually delays gratification and works is a sucker.

During my police days, I used to joke justice occurred when one got into a traffic accident and the other guy got the ticket.  Let us revisit what is akin to a crucifix to a vampire where D/S/Cs are concerned: the pledge of allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Normal Americans gladly recite it without much thinking about it.  We willingly pledge allegiance because America does provide liberty and justice for all.  We even go overboard to provide it to non-Americans, though these days, against the law, and the wishes of observant Americans.  Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, followed by the Bill of Rights and additional amendments, put into law those intentions.  Our Republic, for we have a republican form of government–a constitutional republic–is not a democracy.  It has many features of a democracy, but additional guarantees to eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, democracy’s inherent flaws.  The worst of them is the tyranny of the majority. 

Consider all necessary acknowledgements of the various imperfections of our system, and of the very human failings we’ve recognized and addressed in less than 300 years of existence made.  Think, rather, about how far we’ve come, and how well we’ve successfully lived up to the promise of liberty and justice for all, at least until recently when D/S/C politicians found stirring up racial hate useful.  What other nation in human history has done more, succeeded more consistently?

Perhaps the experience of a police officer can help with a coherent understanding of justice.  I was a field training officer.  My charge was to turn raw recruits into functioning police officers, and explaining such concepts was among my duties, though I was perhaps a bit more philosophical than the average FTO.

A police officer’s job is to equally apply the law.  When they do it without prejudice or ulterior motives, justice occurs.  It is furthered when they write factual, honest reports, reports without embellishment or exaggeration.

It continues when honest prosecutors take a case and base their charging decisions on the facts and the law.  It reaches its pinnacle when everyone charged with a crime has due process, the same opportunities for bail, a speedy trial by a non-compromised jury of their peers, and a verdict, if guilty, in line with the seriousness of the offense, and with lawful sentencing guidelines.  In other words, they’re afforded the full protections of the common law, the Bill of Rights, and state law.

Yet justice is a bit more nebulous because of professional discretion afforded the police, prosecutors and judges.  And oh yes, we do want them to have it, yet must always be looking for abuse of discretion.

Without discretion, every police officer would be required to treat every traffic violator rigidly, or would simply refrain from policing at all.  Everyone stopped for any reason would be ticketed without consideration of the circumstances surrounding the stop.  The same would be true for prosecutors, who would have no choice but to prosecute everyone to the maximum extent of the law, and judges would have to do the same.  I trust, gentle readers, you can see how discretion helps ensure justice, while it may sometimes end in an unjust result.

The rule of law means everyone is subject to arrest when they commit a crime.  Where I worked, that was the status quo.  However, discretion means officers can consider the human factor.  For example, I once arrested a young woman for DUI.  She was very drunk, but I discovered she learned of the death of a beloved relative a few hours earlier, and very much unlike herself, drowned her sorrows.  I recommended to the prosecutor the DUI charge be dropped and one of the traffic violations that called my attention to her be charged instead.  She needed to have the shock of the arrest, but I was convinced it would be sufficient to ensure she’d never make the same mistake.  I was right; she didn’t.  That, gentle readers, was justice.  That was sufficient to ensure public safety and also to maintain respect not only for the police—the men and women who do what we choose not to do on our behalf–but the rule of law.

In some ways, it’s easier to see what justice isn’t.  When young men in college are subjected to a kangaroo court because a young woman engaged in consensual sex later decides she’s ashamed or angry, and they’re denied due process and a meaningful opportunity to defend themself, that’s injustice.  When the nonexistent “rights” of people to not only pretend to be what they are not, but to force everyone else to recognize, praise and accommodate them are shoved down American’s throats, that’s injustice.  When biological men compete against actual women in athletics, that’s injustice.  When politicians tell the police to give rioters “space to destroy,” which was done in Baltimore in the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death, or when politicians force the police to stand by and do nothing as anarchists burn cities, or even try to murder them while they try to bar the exits to their precincts, that’s injustice.  When politicians allow the homeless to live in filth and squalor on the streets and sidewalks of our cities, denying honest Americans the equal protection of the laws, that’s injustice.  When our government throws open our borders, violates innumerable laws, and allows drugs, sexual slavery, terrorists and crime of all kinds into our nation, that’s injustice.  When our DOJ allows “protestors” to violate federal law for political advantage, harassing judges in their homes, that’s injustice.

When all of this and more is allowed to happen, it’s clear the equal application of the rule of law would restore justice, yet it seems very, very hard to do under the current administration.

This, gentle readers, is why we stand on the precipice, waiting for the next unjust outrage, waiting to determine if it’s a step too far, and what the response to that step must inevitably be.

What do we do?  I’ve written it often: seek justice.  Fully embrace the Constitution, American constitutionalism, and the rule of law.  Be, as the Founders hoped, a moral and religious people, people who abhor injustice and seek justice.

Is that so hard?