A Florida man bent out of shape by a federal judge’s dismissal of an LGBQT+ challenge of that state’s anti-gay law left her vulgar and menacing voicemails, and now he’s facing the legal music.
Retired teacher Stephen Jay Thorn, 66, of Pensacola, spared no language in berating the judge and threatening harm, Huffington Post reported on May 17, 2024 (read story here). He pleaded guilty to federal charges and is awaiting sentencing.
The judge, a Trump appointee (see her profile here), dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds (see story here). Thorn wasn’t a party in the lawsuit; he’s just someone apparently in sympathy with the plaintiffs who took umbrage at the judge’s ruling against them.
Regardless of partisanship or ideology, threatening a judge, politician, or other public official is a terrible idea, and not just because it’s a crime. A person may not agree with their actions or decisions, but the right way to disagree is civilized discourse, and the place to disagree is the ballot box.
Judges’ decisions and rulings can be appealed by a party to the lawsuit. Bystanders like Thorn can criticize judges in a First Amendment-protected manner, but people should not take judicial rulings personally, whether they’re a party or not. Upholding the rule of law means respecting the process and accepting its results, even if you disagree with them.
That goes for elections, too, which some folks need more practice at. Critics of Trump and his followers are rightly outraged by his election lies and their election denialism. But angry jerks come in all flavors, and no one should forget that what’s wrong for the goose is wrong for the gander, too.