Threatening Judges and Rule of Law
The following is the full text of Amendment 14 section 3–
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
At least 16 other States are reportedly seeking similar court rulings.
While we await the outcome of the appeal to the US Supreme Court, it is difficult to disagree with President Biden that it is self evident that Trump is an insurrectionist.
However what particularly caught my attention today were reports that since their decision the Colorado Supreme Court judges who ruled against Trump have been subjected to a barrage of threats and abuse. What does that tell us about US society and democracy. A great deal, I would suggest…and it’s not pretty.
While threatening and intimidating judges is a punishable offence in the US and such laws are likely to be applied against lone offenders, it becomes apolitical issue if the threats and criticism are widespread and reflect the views of a sizeable sector of the population. Such laws reflect one of the prerequisites of rule of law – respect for and preparedness to accept judicial decisions. To outsiders Americans seem to resort to court actions in even the most trivial of disputes, yet in political case, unless the court decision is favourable the verdict is often challenged through criticism of and attacks (often personal) on judges.
Judges appointed by state governments or the President are unashamedly labelled as either Democrat or Republican. This is so widely accepted that sight seems to have been lost of the need for an impartial and objective judiciary.
The present attacks on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision raise an even more important related concern at the current state of US democracy – an unwillingness to accept the outcome of elections and a commitment to peaceful transition of power. A key factor that distinguishes healthy democracies from dictatorships and one party states is the preparedness to hand over power when the electoral process including resort to courts of disputed return have been exhausted.
I also note the extent to which a party commanding majority support is considered to empower whatever the majority want. Such unconstrained power or dictatorship by the majority becomes absolutely, and virtually unchallengeable when endorsed by God’s will. The checks and balances of the Constitution, designed to limit the power of any individual or arm of government, are conveniently overlooked when the will of the majority is considered to be unlimited.
Finally, I note, with both disbelief and amusement, the argument that a President or former President is forever immune from prosecution for any crimes committed while in office. Once again rule of law makes everyone including the executive subject to the law. Such a view may cause an unhinged President to feel entitled to break the law with impunity. Pre 2016 I would have considered the issue to be purely hypothetical.
