The Heckler's Veto Otherwise Applied

Democrats are using a version of this anti-free speech tactic to obscure the real story behind the arrest of two judges.

Today's Democrats are nihilists and as such, the only principle or value they hold dear is expediency—how fast they can get what they want. This mindset drives their behavior when faced with setbacks or events that even slightly disadvantage their political positions. When something happens they don’t like, their response mimics a heckler’s veto, not just over public discourse but over the process and content of the law itself. A legitimate heckler’s veto occurs when the rowdy conduct of a hostile audience shuts down a speaker, but you get my point. The tactic is clear when Democrats step up to a microphone or when a CNN panel attempts to drown out anyone citing facts or legal principles, using noise to obscure truth.

Consider the recent cases of Judges Nancy Ann Cano and Hannah C. Dugan. Both were arrested for allegedly shielding illegal alien criminals—Cano for tampering with evidence in a federal investigation involving a Venezuelan gang member, and Dugan for obstructing ICE by helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest. These judges, rightly charged, will have their day in court, though not from behind the bench. Their arrests add to a historical tally: since 1939, thirteen active or retired judges have faced arrest for crimes ranging from perjury, fraud, obstruction, and grand larceny to murder. For instance, in 2023, Jeffrey Ferguson, a state judge in California’s Orange County Superior Court, was charged with murdering his wife during a domestic argument, a shocking breach of judicial trust.

I recall a case from my home state of Mississippi, where we lived during the 1980s. In 1986, Federal Judge Walter Nixon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was arrested and charged with perjury. Nixon was convicted for lying to a grand jury about his efforts to influence a drug smuggling case. Despite maintaining his innocence, he served prison time and was impeached and removed by the Senate in 1989. His case underscores that judicial misconduct, while rare, has deep consequences.

My personal favorite, though it didn’t involve an arrest, is Alcee Hastings. Impeached by the U.S. House in 1988 on eight articles, including bribery and perjury, Hastings was convicted by the Senate in 1989 and removed from his federal judgeship. Astonishingly, in 1992, he was elected to the House as a Democrat, representing Florida until his death in 2021. This trajectory highlights a troubling resilience among some figures to evade accountability through political reinvention.

Judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts, but this protection does not extend to criminal behavior outside their official duties, such as bribery, drug crimes, or personal misconduct. While arrests of judges are rare—with over 30,000 judges in the U.S.—they are not unprecedented. Notably, eight of the thirteen arrests since 1939 have occurred since 2008, suggesting either heightened scrutiny or rising misconduct.

When such cases arise, Democrats like Jamie Raskin, Amy Klobuchar, and Tammy Baldwin often respond with a barrage of rhetoric, aiming to overwhelm facts with noise. Baldwin said the arrests were a “gravely serious and drastic move” that threatens to “breach” the separation of powers between the branches of government. Many Dems trotted out the words “authoritarian”, “fascist” and the good old standby, “Nazi” to describe the actions taken by the DOJ.

I’m sure Chris Van Hollen would want to get in on this if he weren’t too busy writing to his bestie, his new pen (literally) pal in El Salvador.

Backed by media allies, they deploy this form of the heckler’s veto to deflect accountability, prioritizing expediency over principle. This pattern reveals a deeper nihilism, where the ends justify any means, eroding trust in both law and justice.