> you’re phrasing that in the passive voice, as if “the law” is “enforced” by higher beings sitting outside the political process. It is not. The enforcement of

> you’re phrasing that in the passive voice, as if “the law” is “enforced” by higher beings sitting outside the political process. It is not. The enforcement of criminal laws is a political act, performed by political actors. And it is an inherently discretionary political act. Prosecutors actually have no obligation to enforce the law in every circumstance. If you read my comments (maybe not in that one?), I agree and say that often. We must work with human institutions; that's not argument that they can't work, work well, or are useless. I can't think of an advanced democracy that has used that discretion to block a serious candidate (one who could win). > It’s not an argument for lawlessness, but rather an argument for viewing the political act of law enforcement as being secondary to the ultimate political act of electing leadership in any scenario where those two things could be seen as being in conflict. It would allow political actors to break laws with impunity - probably the most dangerous threat to the rule of law is from powerful political actors - simply because there is an election in the future.