Sullied Justice: Don’t Forget Andrew Sullivan’s Preferential Treatment

Image via Wikipedia

Next week will mark the one year anniversary of the The Daily Dish’s Andrew Sullivan’s arrest in Massachusetts on a marijuana charge. In 2002, Eric Alterman correctly noted that, “Andrewsullivan.com sets a standard for narcissistic egocentricity that makes Henry Kissinger look like St. Francis of Assisi. Readers are informed, for instance, that Andy’s toilet recently overflowed; that he had a rollicking dinner chez Hitchens; that he might have seen Tina Brown across a hotel lobby, but he’s not sure; and that, in separate, apparently unrelated incidents, he had a nightmare and ate a bad tuna-fish sandwich that upset his tummy, requiring many “stomach evacuations.” Yet, despite Sullivan’s penchant for venting (quite literally) his spleen on his blog, he has, to my knowledge, said very little about his arrest. Perhaps this is because the manner in which the charges were dropped raises serious and disturbing questions about the way our justice system works.

The great Jonathan V. Last summed up the matter this way: “So Andrew Sullivan gets caught for possession on park service grounds. The penalty is a $125 fine. But because he’s Andrew Sullivan, the State quickly decides to drop the charges “in the interest of justice.” The interests of justice seem to be that this $125 fine would create a record which would hinder Sullivan’s immigration status.” This occasioned a brilliant memorandum from one Judge Collins, taking issue with the manner in which the case was dismissed. I would recommend you read the whole thing, which clearly articulates the unfairly preferential treatment that Sullivan received by virtue of his celebrity. As it happens, Last excerpted the key points, and characterized the issue as thus:

Sullivan and his attorney claim that paying the $125 fine would create a record of his being charged with possession of a controlled substance. Collings notes that whether or not Sullivan ever paid the fine, “if asked by immigration authorities, [he] would have to answer truthfully that he had been charged with a crime involving controlled substances.” So why would it matter whether or not Sullivan just pays the $125? Because if he doesn’t pay it, it makes it easier for him to answer untruthfully.

In other words, the State decided that it was in the interest of justice to help Andrew Sullivan lie to another agency of the State.

All of this goes to show that the concept of “equal protection under the law” was made a mockery of by Sullivan, his lawyer, and the state. Sullivan, himself a putative believer in the “rule of law,” used his clout to flout the law. For Americans who don’t appear regularly on Real Time With Bill Maher, things don’t always end so well. For example, 2000 young Californians were denied access to student loans because of marijuana charges in 2006 alone. Evidently, due to not their not being the authors of famous blogs, they were not able to see the charges dismissed.

In sum, this is a flagrant case of the privileged and powerful manipulating the justice system, and receiving treatment far more generous than Americans of modest means. As such, it should offend any self-proclaimed progressive. Astonishingly, this is a form of trans-national privilege as well: Sullivan is not even an American, yet he was treated with more deference than thousands of Americans are each year. Even those who support the legalization of marijuana must agree that this kind of unfair treatment under the law is quite disturbing.

Many expressed joy at Lindsay Lohan’s jail sentence earlier this week. Finally, the consensus was, a celebrity is being treated like a normal person! Yet before we celebrate this blow for egalitarianism, let’s not forget that, a mere year ago, Andrew Sullivan was “dished” some seriously preferential treatment.