Selective Prosecution Is Unconstitutional [semi-satire]

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 25 Feb 2024 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

This week, US District Court Judge Cormac Carney ruled that "the prosecution of two men from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) who violently clashed with members of Antifa at three southern California pro-Trump events in 2017 is constitutionally impermissible. Both sides engaged in behavior that is illegal, yet the Antifa rioters were not held accountable for their actions."

US Attorney General Merrick Garland called Carney's ruling "outrageous. He completely ignores prosecutorial discretion. The state has the right to decide which cases merit the full punishment of the law and which do not. In the battle to preserve our democracy there are important distinctions between the sides. Granted, both sides engaged in violent confrontation. On the one hand, Antifa was attempting to disrupt a MAGA rally. On the other hand, RAM was attempting to prevent the disruption. Rather than robotically apply the law equally to both sides we need to consider the ends being pursued."

Judge Carney rejected Garland's assertion that "violence in pursuit of ends with which the state agrees can be a valid criteria for deciding to prosecute one offender, but not another. The essential meaning of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is that both sides of the disagreement are entitled to its protection. Inasmuch as Antifa was the aggressor in its efforts to suppress the expression of support for then President Trump it was the instigator of the violence. If they had allowed views with which they disagreed to be heard there would have been no riot. If the state is going to decline to prosecute the instigator of the riot they cannot lawfully prosecute those who resisted the assault."

If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,525034.0.html

[Herodes]

Garland...ESAD.