Abortion Protests and the Rule of Law
Alexander Hamilton described the Supreme Court in Federalist No. 78 as having “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” 
As America’s greatest emblem of justice, it is critical that the judgment rendered by the Court be as pure as is possible in our flawed world. Since it has no force or will of its own, the purity of the Court’s judgment depends on its operations being protected by the powers of the federal government, including the Attorney General’s office.
Leviticus 19:15 describes, in practical terms, what justice looks like through the eyes of God: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
This description is surprisingly similar to the Enlightenment era articulation of the Rule of Law, a principle that is supposed to rule American government. This “rule of law” is described as “the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.” 
America’s faith in the Rule of Law has recently been put to the test because of the Attorney General’s refusal to enforce a federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) against protesters who are picketing and parading outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices in an effort to change their votes on an upcoming opinion. 
These protests started in early May, when the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization rattled the most traditionally reserved branch of government.  The draft includes fiery language from Justice Samuel Alito, stating, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” in reference to the landmark ruling that permitted the work of those he describes as “abortionists.” 
In response to this draft, pro-abortion protesters have made a concerted effort to “influence” the justices in the “discharge” of their “duty” by “parading” and “picketing” outside the justices “residences.” Incidentally, all of these actions in quotation marks are in clear violation of the plain wording of 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which says:
“Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Although there is precedent for the Attorney General’s office to have the final say in how it exercises the “prosecution power” against protesters like this, it is obvious that the decision not to enforce the law in this case is based on political motivation.  This is decidedly unjust and ungodly.
Although Psalm 98:9 is a comfort to those who are grieving from injustice, it should also serve as a warning for those who find themselves contrary to justice and the Rule of Law: “[God] will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity.”
We must all remember that we will be held to account for our decisions, including the decision to disregard justice.
Foundations of Truth hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, published, edited, and distributed in any manner whatsoever without any attribution or notice to Foundations of Truth.