A writer named Kurt Schlichter has some similar thoughts. I still think there is an outside chance that the fix isn't in, and that Clinton might be indicted as she manifestly deserves. But if not, it will be hard to argue against this logic.
There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes....Indeed, I would go further. I think anyone who believes that government workers with guns are going to be able to force compliance had better think again.
Who is standing against this? Not the judges. The Constitution? Meh. Why should their personal agendas be constrained by some sort of foundational document? Judges find rights that don’t appear in the text and gut ones that do. Just ask a married gay guy in Los Angeles who can’t carry a concealed weapons to protect himself from [OMITTED] radicals.
The politicians won’t stand against this. The Democrats support allowing the government to jail people for criticizing politicians and clamor to take away citizens’ rights merely because some government flunky has put their name on a list....
It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.
I say “No.”
We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.
We make it easy for them by going along. We make it simple by defaulting to the old rules. But there are no rules anymore, certainly none that morally bind us once we are outside the presence of some government worker with a gun to force our compliance.
He's right about the judges, though. Clarence Thomas' recent dissent establishes that clearly.