Those protesting recent Supreme Court decisions are unwittingly endorsing an ancient system of litigation, known as trial by combat.
Trial by combat was a practice in which litigants literally and violently fought each other rather than rely on law, precedent, or a judicial system to determine the outcome of a dispute.
In recent years, whether in matters concerning alleged police misconduct or in the heated response by those opposed to recent Supreme Court decisions on Roe v. Wade, school funding, and concealed carry rights, protestors and rioters have taken to the streets, frequently in a violent manner, in an attempt to either influence the outcome of a trial or to seek to negate the implementation of a judge or jury’s decision. Missing in these upheavals is the concept of what’s actually in the law and the Constitution.
The verbal and threatened physical abuse heaped upon the U.S. Supreme Court collectively, and specific judges individually, makes a mockery of the entire concept of a nation governed by laws.
The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a warning, noting that “Some domestic violent extremists (DVE) … will likely exploit the recent US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe V. Wade to intensify violence against a wide range of targets… Faith-based organizations across the United States continue to report numerous criminal incidents against religious institutions connected to abortion rights. We are aware of at least 11 incidents of vandalism threatening violence targeting religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion, and one threat to “bomb” and “burn” a church in New York. These incidents of vandalism against faith-based organizations could indicate future targets of DVE attacks.”
The examples are as numerous as they are stunning.
The Daily Mail reports that the activist group ‘Ruth Sent Us’ told protestors to target CHILDREN, home and church of Supreme Justice Amy Coney after Roe v Wade draft opinion was leaked. Associate Justice Kavanaugh was endangered when an armed man intent on harming him was fund near his home. Throughout the period of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter riots, court buildings were targeted.
In March 2020, Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer stated “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at the rally. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Maxine Waters has stated “To hell with the Supreme Court.” A similar comment was made by California Lt. Gov. (D) Eleni Kounalakis, who said Americans should “live in defiance” of the Supreme Court. “Jane’s Revenge,” which has been linked to arson attacks against the buildings of ideological opponents, shared a post online encouraging a “night of rage” following the Supreme Court announcement, stating, “we need the state to feel our full wrath” and “we need them to be afraid of us.”
Despite the increased danger to the nation’s highest judicial body, the deeply partisan Biden Justice Department was reluctant to provide appropriate protection. The legislative branch was forced to write a law mandating such action, in response to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s failure to do his duty. Shockingly, 27 Democrats refused to endorse the measure, a clear rebuke to the entire concept of the rule of law.
The entire concept of a nation governed by laws and not violence is under clear and direct threat by all this. The Constitution provides clear and specific ways to address grievances, even in response to Supreme Court decisions. The rejection of these methods is part of a larger threat to America by leftist extremists, now so prominent in the Democratic Party, who seek to replace both the Constitution and the Bill of rights with a government subservient to their radical ideology.
Photo: Pixabay