Eric Holder candidly acknowledged his objective in the Michael Brown case when he stated, “my commitment. . .is, long after this tragic story no longer receives this level of attention, the Justice Department will continue to stand with Ferguson.” One might have hoped that the Justice Department’s commitment in this instance would be to justice, rather than to standing with any particular group or geographic location.
The two goals are at odds, although it’s possible that they could converge in the same result. Justice is supposed to be blind. Thus, it cannot stand with any group or entity. Before its processes have run their course, justice should not stand with anyone. After they have been completed, justice still shouldn’t stand with a particular group or cluster of population. It should stand with the party shown to deserve a favorable outcome.
Holder’s statement that the DOJ will “stand with Ferguson” suggests that he doesn’t understand, or isn’t committed to, the concept of the justice. That’s a rather unfortunate shortcoming in the head of the Department of Justice.
Like nearly all leftists, Holder believes in “social justice.” This explains, I think, why he seems to see the role of the Department of Justice as standing with a commitment to standing with a town or other geographic entity.
Unfortunately, some conservatives have also been seduced by the idea of “social justice.” Holder’s reckless statement about Ferguson should remind conservatives that social justice is a nonsensical concept because justice is an individual-centric concept, not something that is meted out to groups.