This is almost as interesting as a headline of “Man Bites Dog.” The Tennessean (8/30/19) published an article about Mayor David Briley protesting that some Metropolitan (Nashville) agencies were cooperating with the federal government, particularly the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Here is an excerpt:
In a letter sent Thursday morning to Interim Metropolitan Auditor Gina Pruitt, Briley said it was "absolutely unacceptable" that Probation Director Robert Green and probation officers have been cooperating with ICE agents since at least 2017. Briley said the behavior "does not reflect the character of our city."
This administration is complaining about the city government cooperating with duly appointed and authorized federal law enforcement agencies. The thing that makes this story so interesting is that this is the same mayor who protests, condemns, and has attempted to ban scooter companies for operating in this fair city because they are not obeying the “laws” that he had established.
(We will not address the fact that these regulations are ex-post-facto, attempting to control pre-existing operations. Seems like some obscure document way back there in history proscribed passing laws outlawing ongoing operations. Or something like that–don’t write me to object. I know, it is on-going operations, not past ones. It is not germane to this discussion.)
Mayor Briley is essentially claiming that his administration is justified in enforcing the laws that he chooses and ignoring those that he does not like. Seems like the term, “scoff-law” applies here. Not to the city, but to the scooter companies, in his economy. Well, maybe it applies to both.
Riders do not wear helmets. They drive where they should not. They go too fast. They are reckless. They abandon the scooters where ever they dang well please. And Mayor B doesn’t like that. (And a few other people as well.) But then he chooses to ignore laws, not just regulations or guidelines. But his rationale is that this does not reflect our city.
Does he mean, by “reflecting,” that this shows the character and conduct of the city in ignoring federal regulations, or that they want to be caring and compassionate? The “caring” moniker is somewhat suspect overall as reported by Bobbie Patray in The Tennessee Eagle Forum. Many instances all over the country deal with convicted felons being released into the community. Once free, they continue to commit further crimes because the jurisdiction refused to comply with ICE requests to hold them until the criminal could be repatriated to his own country.
It seems like the Ma’er (as they say in Chicago) only complains when it is his bull that gets gored. It is okay to disregard and disdain the laws he doesn’t like, but don’t dare scoff at his restrictions. (Ed comment from out of town: Maybe that is why about 75% of those voting for mayor in the preliminary chose a different candidate. They want him out. I didn’t get to vote in that election, but I would have been in the majority.)
“Obey my laws, but I will choose the ones I want to respect.” Does that bite?
Here is a link to the original Tennessean article along with some other comments from other government officials.
And here is a link to the newsletter from the Tennessee Eagle Forum.
Friday, August 30, 2019
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
No Dog in the Hunt
For the record, I do not have a dog in the hunt. The Tennessean (8/14/19) published an article about a program to dismiss minor offenses involving driving violations. They largely deal with people who are charged with driving with a revoked license, often because they had unpaid fines for other violations. These multiplied fines and charges cripple the individual’s ability to secure housing and employment.
(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)
The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.
And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)
The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."
Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.
But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?
This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.
The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.
And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative, hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.
For what it is worth.
(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)
The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.
And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)
The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."
Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.
But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?
This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.
The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.
And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative, hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.
For what it is worth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)