Scott Tibbs

An unprecedented attack on the rule of law

By Scott Tibbs, May 11, 2022

Back in 2016, Donald Trump attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying that Curiel could not be fair to him in a lawsuit over Trump University because Curiel was "Mexican" and Trump was campaigning on building a wall on the southern border. Curiel was born in Indiana. Democrats howled in protest at Trump's disregard for traditional norms and disrespect of the rule of law. Today, those same Democrats are silent as militant pro-abortion activists go to the homes of sitting Supreme Court justices to try to intimidate them into not overruling Roe v. Wade.

Now let's be clear: Trump was indeed wrong to attack a sitting federal judge on false pretenses. Trump is and has always been a pop-off. There is no filter between his brain and his mouth, and that is a serious character flaw. But Trump mouthing off is orders of magnitude less serious than actively trying to bully and intimidate Supreme Court justices over disagreement about a legal ruling. This is a very serious attack on our institutions. It is at least as bad as the roving QAnon mobs storming the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. I would argue it is worse: This is not a public building, but people's private homes.

Democrats who refused to condemn the intimidation of Supreme Court justices have proven they never cared about norms, our institutions, or the rule of law. Those who refuse to condemn bullying Supreme Court justices have proven that their hand-wringing about January 6 is nothing more than partisan politics, not respect for the rule of law or the peaceful transition of power.

The basic problem here is that people do not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. This has been going on for generations, well before I was ever born. The Supreme Court is not a political body that makes policy decisions. SCOTUS is supposed to read the text of the law and the Constitution and appropriately apply the text to their legal rulings. The Left has turned the Court into a political institution that is responsible for implementing policy on a wide variety of issues.

But the Supreme Court, which is not elected and is not accountable directly to the people, was never intended to be a policy-making body. Having nine judges appointed for life deciding policy rather than interpreting the law nationalizes policy debates that ought to be handled at the state and local level while increasing the anger and frustration of political activists who are forbidden by erroneous court decisions from impacting policy. It also serves to make presidential elections much more divisive and emotionally charged, because the stakes of who nominates justices are so unreasonably high.

Roe v. Wade was always bad law, invented by the Supreme Court in 1973. There is no constitutional basis for a "right" to hire a "doctor" to kill a baby. Sending it back to the states leaves babies vulnerable and many will still die. That is why ending Roe v. Wade is not enough, nor is it a valid reading of the text of the Constitution. We need Supreme Court justices who have actually read the Fourteenth Amendment and realize that allowing abortion anywhere is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection under the law.

But that is not the immediate problem we face, which is "Antifa" mobs deciding that the Supreme Court must be intimidated and bullied at their private homes into ruling the "correct" way. This is a direct attack on the rule of law and the integrity of our constitutional system. We cannot allow this to continue, and it is time to reform our laws to mandate privacy and criminalize harassment at someone's private residence. This would be a reasonable "time place, and manner" regulation of free speech, and your "free speech" rights do not include the right to harass and intimidate Supreme Court justices (or mayors, governors or Congressmen) at their private homes.

Opinion Archives

E-mail Scott

Scott's Links

About the Author