The rule of law must be allowed to determine the US elections

The rule of law determined in judicial proceedings conducted free of threat or intimidation must always be accepted or chaos and anarchy is sure to follow.

It is becoming increasingly apparent with the rash of Court proceedings challenging the US election results - that this year’s highly unusual and unprecedented Presidential election and elections for the House and Senate will be determined by decisions made by the Courts.

What is disturbing is that such ultimately Court-determined result will not be accepted by everyone – and therein lies a huge problem for the future of American democracy.

Protests and demonstrations against Court decisions to denigrate or undermine those decisions can hardly be regarded as exercising one’s right to free speech. Accepting those decisions – for better or for worse - must be democracy’s response – because the alternative is chaos, rioting and the breakdown of what should always be governed by the principle that no person is above the law.

Courts exist to settle disputes between people who cannot resolve their disputes themselves. Courts are not perfect and often get their decisions wrong. An appeal process exists to remedy what is perceived to be the wrong judgement in a lower Court. The whole process is expensive and the time frame can extend over many years. Frustration is inevitable when the last avenue of appeal is reached to find nine judges split 5-4 in their decision.

Mediation has become a tool to settle disputes – but it is clearly not going to apply to the current political standoff.

The Courts – whether you – or they - like it or not - are going to be the arbiters.

Those who take part in such Court proceedings – judges, witnesses, court officials and legal firms - should not be intimidated, threatened, denigrated or abused as the outcome of the litigation in which they are involved is determined or after decisions have been reached.

It is therefore disturbing to see the following incidents being reported as the Republicans pursue their legal rights to challenge the election results in the Courts:

·        A Philadelphia lawyer who had represented the Trump campaign being placed under official protection after receiving “threats of harm” and the Judge allowing her to withdraw as Counsel after she had “been subjected to continuous harassment in the form of abusive emails, phone calls, physical and economic threats, and even accusations of treason—all for representing the President of the United States’ campaign in this litigation.”

She had also sought sanctions against a lawyer working for another law firm representing a party in the case after she received harassment and a threatening phone call in connection with her representation of the Trump campaign.

·        The Lincoln Project launching a campaign encouraging the public, and other firm clients, to confront the law firms representing clients challenging the election results.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley was moved to point out:

“What is missing however are calls in the media or from Democratic leaders to end such campaign of intimidation and abuse by groups like the Lincoln Project.  While President-elect Joe Biden has called for unity and healing, he has said nothing about the campaign against Trump campaign lawyers and their clients. He has said nothing about reports of violent threats against officials or lawyers tied to election challenges”

There has to be a clear and unequivocal joint statement by both major political parties that:

·        the decisions of the Courts and their proceedings must be respected and obeyed

·        any attempt to prevent the Courts doing their job will not be tolerated.

·        witnesses and legal firms must not be harassed, intimidated, threatened or denigrated

The rule of law determined in judicial proceedings conducted free of threat or intimidation must always be accepted or chaos and anarchy is sure to follow.