AG Sessions’ Use Of The Jedi Mind Trick With Anglo American Heritage Is Getting Old
We Know The Force Is With You Sheriffs, About You Sheriffs, And Misused By You Sheriffs To Protect White Supremacy
So. 🤔🧐 I have to weigh in on this because ( I too am a citizen😐) as you may or may not know many people are outraged that the Attorney General, (and let me put this in the most obvious of contexts) spoke to and at a National Sheriff’s Association meeting this Monday and mentioned…
“Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process. The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement. We must never erode this historic office.”
Now I read the New Yorker’s take on this and Ms. Sorkin, who is a brilliant journalist, and she saw through the Attorney General’s implicit persuasions, but managed to contort her piece to the narrative of transparency in the Department of Justice though. Be that what it may. We know that AG Sessions is not a transparent kind of guy, as well as any other cold blooded body chosen by President Trump and his administration. This angle really doesn’t do it any justice though. So allow me to put this into perspective that we can undeniably sift through with critical thinking. We know what time it is and its Trump time!
We also know that Anglo American is a descriptive legal term, crafted in rectitude by and for the Founding Fathers, whose contributions also crafted second class citizenry and slavery, and its surviving achievement today, racial hierarchy and inequality which led to the Three-Fifths Clause, then amendments 13, 14 and 15 to clear the whole slavery thing and equality notion up.
We know that President Obama is a pedigreed lawyer. We know that Obama has used the term previously on occassion too — but contextually — as laid out in the conservative National Reviews’ emphatic defense of the term here.
Here’s Senator Obama in 2006, arguing in favor of habeas corpus on the Senate floor:
The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future — our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the “great writ” — a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.
And here’s Obama during the 2008 campaign, making broadly the same point:
But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.
Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’” The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, “because we don’t always have the right person.”
And here’s Obama as president, at it again:
Obama would not say whether it could be achieved within the first 100 days of his term, citing the challenge of creating a balanced process “that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, but doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.
This usage — which is precisely the same as Sessions’s — is common, it is quotidian, it is downright normal.
'Anglo-American' Is a Common Legal and Historical Term, It Is Not a 'Dog Whistle'
Jeff Sessions is under fire today for having used a term correctly, appropriately, and in its entirely proper context.…
Yes. But it is not contextually the same and in no exact terms is it precise. We know that that’s what lawyers do. We know that the term itself is normal, quotidian usage. We know that Anglo Americans exclusively wrote the legal system, borrowing from British law. We know that Anglo American jurisprudence was contradicting enough but democratically written for the people by Anglo Americans with moral and ethical impunity as the law of the land. We know what that infers and what it implies.
We also know that this is a false equivalence
We also know that in all of the contexts provided by the leading conservative publication in the National Review that posits President Obama’s usage wasn’t stated with the pretext of protecting the Sheriff’s heritage of law enforcement. Because we should, presumably know that in AG Sessions’ context and view that this is a Jedi Mind Trick. But arguing this would be akin to the weekly Trump administration reality show series of the back and forth exchanges between the White House press corp and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. It just gets mendaciously ignorant — motivated and insensitive to haplessly argue before a sentimental electoral college win.
To be clear, the history of Sheriffs in this country has symbolic significance rooted in the orthodoxy of the South. They previously held immensely pervasive power, sprinkled throughout locally, serving many roles that blurred the lines of logical separation of duties.
“Through patronage, political influence and legal and extralegal coercion, the county sheriff has cast a long shadow over many aspects of economic, political and social life in the South. The county sheriff is or has been, at different places and times, politician, law enforcement officer, jail keeper, bailiff, record keeper, tax collector, dog catcher, overseer of highway and bridges, custodian of county funds, executioner, property assessor, librarian, reforestation warden, game and bird warden, arson investigator, census taker, and process server. Many of these functions remain under the jurisdiction of the office, although for a variety of reasons its political and legal power have diminished in recent decades.”(Moore, T. (1997). Race and the County Sheriff in the American South.)
Lest we also forget to put into historical context of Sheriffs, that they are predominately all white and male and are the “linchpins in the maintenance of white supremacy and its class-based and race-based privileges.”(Moore, T. (1997))
Sheriffs are generally perceived broadly as racists, not by popular opinion, (and through those Bugs Bunny cartoons) but by more observant facts.
There seems to be an ongoing historical precedent and pattern here and I only went as far as the first googled page. Maybe it has something to do with the lack of checks and balances afforded to them.
“Exercising broad discretionary powers in the enforcement of the law, county sheriffs helped reproduce the complex set of social taboos and practices that made up Jim Crow society. Sheriffs were not only empowered to arrest and jail, but to fail to arrest and jail. By acceding to the wishes of white elites, sheriffs administered the racial paternalism that helped keep southern blacks beholden to their white patrons, securing their cheap labor for agrarian or industrial capitalists and suppressing their ability to resist the reproduction of white hegemony. (Moore, T., (1997))
So the uproar is not so much a political statement or brain fart polluting American values and traditions. We hold these truths to be self-evident in the wake of nationalistic injustice and aberrant cultural indoctrination. I see you David Clarke, I see you cowbwoi.🤬. So you can keep up the charlantry and prideful charm offensive…and may that irrational force of nature be with you.
Only for those who like to read and fact check.
Moore, T. (1997). Race and the County Sheriff in the American South. International Social Science Review, 72(1/2), 50–61. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41882228