Disorder in the Court
The Fani Willis controversy reveals a deeper problem with the court.
By Hunter Oswald
What happens to the rule of law — and the court — when it takes off the blindfolds of Lady Justice? For an answer, look at the present situation in Georgia.
Nowhere is the unblinding of justice more evident than in the recent events surrounding Fani Willis, the District Attorney of Fulton County, and her personal relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecution in Trump’s Georgia election interference case. Trump and his attorneys asked the court to remove Willis and dismiss the election indictments on account of a speech she gave at her church discussing the case and her affair with Wade. Trump’s attorneys in their filing argued “The State knows that improper extrajudicial public comments by a prosecutor in the State of Georgia may be dealt with by disqualification.” The situation developed into an evidentiary hearing for Willis and Wade over whether or not she should be removed on account of perceived bias towards the witness.
Disqualifying Fani Willis
On March 15, Judge Scott McAfee announced his decision to not unequivocally disqualify Fani Willis from Trump’s Georgia interference case but placed a rather peculiar proposition. Either she or special prosecutor Wade, must step down. In his ruling, McAfee concluded: “The Court finds the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest. However, the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.” Not long after the decision was made, Nathan Wade resigned his position as the special prosecutor for the case. Wade states in his letter that his decision to resign was “in the interest of democracy.”
“Although the court found, that ‘the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest,’” Wade argued, “I am offering my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and to move this case forward as quickly as possible.”
A Broader Problem
Some would regard Nathan’s decision to leave his post as a wise decision. Yet the whole situation belies a greater problem facing America’s justice system. One of the greatest challenges facing our nation’s justice system is the American perception of the court as political. In a 2023 Pew study, 68% of Republicans held a favorable view of the Supreme Court compared to 24% of Democrats, which makes sense when half of Americans see the current court as ideologically conservative.
This image is reinforced by an Economist/YouGov 2023 poll where 62% of Americans believed that “Supreme Court justices often let their own personal or political views influence their decisions.” When looking at the polls, the situation becomes quite clear. Americans’ partisan preferences guide their support of our judicial system, not wise rulings. Of course, this ongoing polarization extends to elected court officials.
Further Polarization
When looking at the justice system at the local or state level, we find not only polarization influencing courts, but radical ideologues seeking to enact an inherently unjust system. A driving factor in this radicalization can be seen in the Left’s push to hijack law schools to transform America through its legal system.
The growing radicalization of America’s judicial system has fostered the likes of Philadelphia “progressive prosecutor” Larry Krasner, whose progressive reforms have led to a significant spike in violent crimes in Philadelphia. For further evidence, look to Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, whose bail reform policies allowed Darrell Brook to kill six innocent children.
Cicero once said, “The extreme of the right is the extreme of the wrong.” In the case of Fani Willis, the extreme efforts by those claiming to seek justice are opening the door for injustice to take place. When partisan-driven DAs or judges use the gavel for their agendas, is that justice?
Moving Forward
We are in an era when the integrity of our courts is political. The decision to allow Fani Willis to stay on Trump’s case does not do any justice in restoring confidence in our judicial system. It doesn’t matter if one is progressive or conservative, Republican or Democrat. What does matter is ensuring respect for the rule of law.
John Adams once said that our government is “of laws, and not of men.” Our republic is built on a fundamental notion: everyone receives equal protection under law. Americans have a chance to restore our judicial system. It begins with a concerted effort to rediscover and restore America’s foundational roots.
About the Author
Hunter Oswald is a senior student studying political science and minoring in economics as well as national security. Hunter is a staff writer for Cogitare Magazine and contributor for the Grove City College Collegian newspaper. He has previously been a member of the Grove City Debate Team.
This past summer, Hunter Oswald interned at the American Spectator. Previously, he completed the Heritage Foundation’s Academy Program, where he studied numerous public policy issues and America’s foundational principles.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or its affiliates. They do not constitute an endorsement of any presidential candidate.