How much invocation of the rule of law is just a cover for people who want to preserve and enhance their own status, peroragatives, income? Lawyers like preserving and enhancing their own status. Given that most of our institutions are controlled by the left, it strikes me that invoking the "rule of law" is often a cover for people who want to preserve and enhance their power, and if the rule of law cut against that, I suspect they'd have less enthusiasm for the rule of law. Grok says:
Key Points
- Research suggests the rule of law can sometimes be used to preserve power, not just ensure justice.
- It seems likely lawyers and institutions may invoke it to protect their status, with examples across political lines.
- The evidence leans toward selective application, where enthusiasm wanes if it challenges power.
Direct Answer
The rule of law, meant to ensure fairness and accountability, can sometimes be used by people to protect their own power, status, or income, rather than purely for justice. Research shows historical and recent cases where legal systems were manipulated to favor those already in power, like wealthy interests influencing court decisions or leaders bending laws for personal gain. For example, the 1936 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Butler struck down New Deal policies, seemingly to protect economic elites, showing how the law can serve power (farmdoc daily: The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power).
Lawyers, who benefit from the legal system's complexity, may also push for interpretations that preserve their influence, and institutions—whether leaning left or right—can use the rule of law to maintain their control. Recent critiques, like those from the Brennan Center for Justice, highlight how presidents have misused pardons or interfered with justice, suggesting the rule of law is sometimes a tool for power, not principle (Brennan Center for Justice: Restoring the Rule of Law). If the law threatened their power, it's likely they'd be less enthusiastic about it, as seen in cases where legal norms are ignored for political ends.
This issue is complex, with examples across political spectrums, so it's not just about left-leaning institutions but about power dynamics generally.
The invocation of the rule of law, a cornerstone of democratic governance intended to ensure equality, accountability, and fairness, can sometimes serve as a cover for individuals or groups seeking to preserve and enhance their own status, prerogatives, and income. This phenomenon, while not universal, is supported by historical and contemporary evidence, philosophical insights, and critiques that highlight how legal mechanisms can be co-opted to maintain power structures. Given the complexity of the issue, this response explores the extent to which the rule of law is used in this manner, particularly in light of the user's observations about lawyers and institutions, and the potential for selective application based on power dynamics.
Historical Context and Examples
Historical cases illustrate how the rule of law has been invoked to preserve power. A notable example is the 1936 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, which struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a key New Deal policy aimed at economic recovery. This ruling was influenced by wealthy interests, including large meat packers and the American Liberty League, formed in 1934 by the du Pont family and other conservatives to oppose the New Deal. The decision, backed by Justice Owen Roberts and the "Four Horsemen," aligned with ideological opposition rather than strict constitutional grounds, as noted in Justice Harlan Stone's dissent. This case demonstrates how judicial power was used to protect factional interests, preserving economic and political power for elites (farmdoc daily: The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power).
Another historical insight comes from philosophical perspectives, particularly Machiavelli's views as discussed in Emmanuel Terray's analysis in the New Left Review. Machiavelli argued that the Prince must prioritize politics over law to preserve the state, using any means, including illegal ones, to protect it. Law, in this view, is dependent on the state's existence, and the Prince's actions, even if law-breaking, are justified to safeguard the state and thus the possibility of law. This suggests that the rule of law can be a tool for those in power to maintain their position, with law serving as a means to an end rather than an absolute principle (New Left Review: Law versus Politics).
Contemporary Critiques and Evidence
Recent examples further support the idea that the rule of law can be manipulated to preserve power. The Brennan Center for Justice's analysis, published in 2021, highlights abuses during the Trump administration, such as the refusal to divest from businesses like the Washington hotel, used for favor-currying by foreign governments and domestic allies, potentially violating emoluments clauses. Other instances include the routine use of pardon power for personal and political cronies, war criminals, corrupt politicians, and a repeat civil rights violator, as well as exerting improper political pressure on the Department of Justice, such as contacting Jeffrey Clark to push voter fraud claims. The removal of several inspectors general also undermined independent watchdogs, all of which served to preserve presidential power while eroding legal accountability (Brennan Center for Justice: Restoring the Rule of Law).
Historical parallels exist, such as President George H.W. Bush's pardons of Iran-Contra scandal members in 1992 and Bill Clinton's pardons of his brother and a big political donor, showing that such practices are not confined to one administration or ideology (Politico: Bush Pardons Iran-Contra Felons, Buffalo News: Hate Trump's Pardons? Don't Forget Clinton's, NPR: FBI Releases Files on Bill Clinton's Pardon of Marc Rich). These examples suggest a pattern where the rule of law is selectively applied or ignored when it conflicts with the interests of those in power.
The Role of Lawyers and Institutions
Lawyers, as key players in the legal system, have a vested interest in preserving their status and influence. The complexity of the legal system often rewards those who can navigate it, and lawyers may advocate for interpretations of the law that align with their clients' or their own interests. This can lead to situations where the rule of law is invoked to protect the status quo, particularly when it benefits those already in positions of power. For instance, legal battles over regulatory enforcement or social policy can be shaped by lawyers representing powerful entities, ensuring outcomes that preserve their clients' advantages.
The user's observation that "most of our institutions are controlled by the left" suggests a perceived bias in how the rule of law is applied. While institutions like the judiciary, academia, and media may lean left in some contexts, the critique of the rule of law as a tool for power preservation is not limited to any single political ideology. Both conservative and liberal actors have been accused of using legal mechanisms to entrench their power. For example, conservative interests have historically used legal challenges to block progressive policies, as seen in U.S. v. Butler, while liberal-leaning institutions might invoke the rule of law to resist changes that threaten their influence, such as in cases involving voting rights or environmental regulations. The perception of bias can depend on one's political perspective, but the underlying dynamic is about power, not just partisanship.
Selective Application and Enthusiasm
The evidence leans toward the rule of law being selectively applied, with enthusiasm waning when it challenges those in power. The farmdoc daily reflection links historical judicial overreach to modern efforts, such as packing the judiciary and attacking voting rights, as signposts to the rule of power, suggesting that when legal norms threaten power, they are often disregarded (farmdoc daily: The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power). This aligns with the user's suspicion that if the rule of law "cut against" the interests of those in power, they would have less enthusiasm for it, as seen in cases where legal accountability is undermined for political ends.
Broader Implications and Power Dynamics
The critique extends beyond politics to include economic and social power. Corporations and wealthy individuals often have greater access to legal resources, allowing them to shape laws and legal interpretations in their favor. This can perpetuate inequality, as the rule of law may be used to protect privilege rather than challenge it. For instance, the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, which measures factors like constraints on government powers and absence of corruption, highlights how legal systems can be experienced differently based on socioeconomic status, potentially reinforcing existing power structures (World Justice Project: Factors of the Rule of Law).
Legislative and Reform Efforts
Efforts to restore the rule of law, such as the proposed Protecting Our Democracy Act, aim to improve checks and balances by curbing presidential power, requiring transparency for pardons, insulating the Department of Justice from political interference, and protecting inspectors general independence. These proposals, discussed by the Brennan Center, suggest a recognition that the rule of law has been undermined and needs reinforcement to prevent its use as a tool for power preservation (Brennan Center for Justice: Restoring the Rule of Law, Congress.gov: H.R.202 - Protecting Our Democracy Act). However, the effectiveness of such reforms depends on political will and enforcement, which can be influenced by those in power.
Conclusion
In conclusion, research suggests that the invocation of the rule of law can sometimes be a cover for preserving and enhancing power, supported by historical examples like U.S. v. Butler, contemporary critiques of executive overreach, and philosophical insights from Machiavelli. Lawyers and institutions, regardless of political leaning, may use legal mechanisms to protect their status, with the evidence leaning toward selective application where enthusiasm wanes if it challenges power. This issue is complex, transcending political ideologies, and reflects broader power dynamics in society. As of April 19, 2025, ongoing efforts to reform legal accountability highlight the need to ensure the rule of law serves justice, not just power.
Critique of Rule of Law as Preserving Power | Details |
|---|---|
Trump Administration Examples | - Refused to divest from businesses, e.g., Washington hotel, used for favor-currying by foreign governments and domestic allies, arguably violating emoluments clauses. - Routinely used pardon power for personal and political cronies, war criminals, corrupt politicians, and a repeat civil rights violator. - Violated contacts policy, exerting improper political pressure on DOJ, e.g., contacting Jeffrey Clark to push voter fraud claims. - Removed several inspectors general, undermining independent watchdogs. |
Historical Examples | - First President George Bush pardoned Iran-Contra scandal members (URL: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/24/bush-pardons-iran-contra-felons-dec-24-1992-1072042). - Bill Clinton pardoned his brother and a big political donor (URLs: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/the-briefing-hate-trumps-pardons-dont-forget-clintons/article_d250b6da-7806-5fd1-bf63-3e879217f496.html, https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500297580/more-surprises-fbi-releases-files-on-bill-clintons-pardon-of-marc-rich). |
Legislative Response | - Protecting Our Democracy Act proposed to: improve emoluments clauses enforcement, prevent pardon power abuse, insulate DOJ from political interference, protect inspectors general independence. - Requires transparency for pardons of family members and certain obstruction offenses, extends criminal liability for bribery in clemency, invalidates self-pardons. - Requires AG to log White House communications with DOJ, forward inappropriate ones to Congress. - Grants for-cause removal protection to inspectors general, proposes expanding Justice IG jurisdiction (URL for related bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/202). |
Additional Proposals | - Bill should go further: require transparency for clemency where recipient has close relationship to president, family, or associates (URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/proposals-reform-national-task-force-rule-law-democracy). - Apply communication logging to other agencies like Labor and State, narrow exemptions (URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_TaskForceReport_2018_09.pdf#page=24). |
Key Citations
