The article discusses the selective outrage towards legal violations across political divides, suggesting that calls of hypocrisy are misguided. It argues that the rule of law is deeply tied to moral judgments made by both enforcers and citizens. Laws are varied, with some viewed as essential and others ignored, leading to a complex landscape where outrage over illegality can be seen as a reflection of personal or political beliefs rather than hypocrisy. This nuance suggests that not all legal violations are perceived equally, and context matters greatly in political discourse.
Being selectively outraged about violations of the law doesn't make you a hypocrite. Rather, it tells us something deep about the rule of law.
The rule of law requires enforcers to exercise discretionary judgment, moral judgments about which legal violations require prosecutions, and which ones get a pass.
Collection
[
|
...
]