Above the law

Andrew Sullivan, after being caught possessing marijuana in a national park, got the charges dropped while similar cases were prosecuted. The judge is not happy:

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.

If there were a legitimate reason for the disparate treatment, the Court would view the matter differently. But the United States Attorney refused to allow the Court to inquire into why, in the circumstances of this case where Mr. Sullivan had already been charged with the crime, either a forfeiture of collateral or an adjudication would make a difference in the immigration application.

But there is more. If, in fact, a determination that Mr. Sullivan had possessed marijuana is a factor which, under immigration law, the immigration authorities are legally charged with taking into account when deciding Mr. Sullivan’s application, why should the United States Attorney make a judgment that, despite the immigration law, the charge should be dismissed because it would “adversely affect” his application? If other applicants for a certain immigration status have had their applications “adversely affected” by a conviction or a forfeiture of collateral for possession of marijuana, then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences?

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 Instapundit.)

Last April, Sullivan 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.


POSTSCRIPT: I stopped paying attention to Andrew Sullivan long before last April, but Sullivan being who he is, I knew he must have said something like this at some point. It wasn’t hard to google up this instance. There’s probably more.

UPDATE: Patterico offers another stunning hypocrisy on Sullivan’s part. (Warning: link quotes a vulgar advertisement).

3 Responses to Above the law

  1. […] – Instapundit & Internet Scofflaw) My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the […]

  2. vavu2009 says:

    Sullivan started going down hill when blogging became a paying gig for him. Once relieved of the burden of having to actually encounter (let alone deal with) people who didn’t share his world view, he reverted to the elitist hypocrite (“of no part or clique”?) he is.

    C. L.
    Colorado Springs, Colorado

  3. […] the Internet Scofflaw, we learned that Andrew Sullivan once sanctimoniously wrote: My view is that no one is above the […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s