Kent Scheidegger of  Crime and Consequences posts about one of his pet peeves, what he calls the “asymmetric application of attorneys’ fee awards” stemming from people who challenge the government for violating the Constitution and their civil rights.  What pisses Kent off is

the way attorneys’ fees are awarded when people sue the government, asking courts to overturn policy decisions made through the democratic process. When plaintiffs win, they get attorneys’ fee awards routinely, while the government almost never gets an award for the cost of defending its perfectly legitimate, constitutional decision from an unwarranted attack.

Putting aside for the moment Kent’s value judgment, that whatever pops into the mind of the executive or legislative branch of government is sacrosanct, and by definition “perfectly legitimate” because he’s a company guy and the company says so, it’s impossible to say whether Kent is just blind or totally disingenuous. 

The government and the people are not the equivalent entities.  One serves the other.  Since this sentence may confuse Ken, I mean that the government serves the people.  The people do not exist to give the government someone to abuse for pleasure. 

One of the basic rights that people have is to question (except when it comes to speeding tickets, in which case they get tasered) and challenge the government when it makes rules, policies and laws that limit the legitimate freedom of people to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  It doesn’t mean that they will invariably win, since freedom is only one interest at stake, together with equality and order (if that paradigm suits your tastes), but that they get to try.  Without fear of being crushed financially for challenging the government.

And guess what, Kent?  You don’t have to personally approve of the things that matter to other people.  Whether you think it’s silly, trivial or inconsequential has nothing to do with it.  Perhaps you are not the ultimate arbiter of what matters in the world?  Each of these litigants is a human being who, for whatever reason, feels strongly enough about something to petition the courts for redress against the government.  This is how we do things in America.  Get used to it.

But this post is about Kent’s pet peeve, and he’s allowed to be annoyed by whatever he wants, no matter how foolish, misguided or vacuous.  And I will fight to the death for your right to be vacuous, Kent.  Even when it demonstrates such a wholesale lack of understanding or appreciation of the role of government relative to the people.

But I do have to tell you one of my pet peeves:  The people with your pet peeves are allowed to hold jobs where they can exercise discretion as to the lives of others.  Hey, we’re all allowed to have pet peeves, right?