Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

New York Times columnist David French had a few alarming things to say about the Supreme Court's ruling Monday to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot. “As of Monday, March 4, 2024, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is essentially a dead letter," he wrote. “The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction.”

Note the blatant double standard assumption in these arguments that Trump is guilty of insurrection, even though he has yet to be convicted of anything. How about all the people in 2020 who were helping and encouraging people to burn our cities to the ground and let the rioters off scot-free? Our own vice president, while she was a U.S. senator from California, was raising money to make sure that bail was covered for anybody who engaged in the violence that wrought havoc on our cities. Does that seem like aiding and abetting chaos?

Logic dictates that you cannot “defend democracy” if you’re trying to remove your competitor from the ballot.

Remember the mayhem in Portland? Were the people in our own government who were endorsing and allowing rioters to trap the FBI in their own building while trying to burn down a federal courthouse guilty of aiding and abetting? How about all the Soros district attorneys and attorneys general who selectively chose who to prosecute based on their leftist political agenda? How about the NGOs that have aided and abetted those involved in the southern border crisis and now northern invasion of the United States?

How about all of those who have subverted the Bill of Rights to create a public-private partnership with the mainstream media and social media to subvert the voices of the American people?

Or how about those who have just been elected to office who have actively co-opted our intelligence agencies against the Constitution and spy on the American people? Is that a problem? Or is Donald Trump our only problem?

Unconstitutional tit for tat

Here’s the issue that the anti-Trump crowd refuses to acknowledge about this week’s Supreme Court ruling: If any state court, whether it be Colorado or Maine, could declare that a candidate is an enemy of the Constitution, what would stop Texas from doing the same thing to Joe Biden? Nothing. Nothing would.

While Congress is deeply flawed, it is at least a collection of state representatives. All 50 states are represented. While many of the representatives themselves could be deemed an enemy of the Constitution, as few of them as seem to honor it or even really understand it, Congress is at least a national body made up of representatives from all the states. Texas alone should not be allowed to take Biden off the ballot, and neither should Colorado or any other state be allowed to take Trump off the ballot.

If you want to play that unconstitutional game, that's fine. But then Texas and others will have to play it against you — only as a defense, not as a valid constitutional principle.

For those who voted differently than I did, let’s think this through. Will playing this game aid our Constitution? Will that support our republic? Will it create more stable nation and a more perfect union? Does it promote domestic tranquility or domestic chaos?

You may to appeal to the fact that we are a democracy and that each of the states should decide for themselves what constitutes an “insurrectionist.” But we are not. A democracy implies one man, one vote. There’s more to our political system than that. We're a democratic republic. The first part of that definition happens like what we just saw on Super Tuesday. We all go out and vote: one man, one vote. You let the people decide on their preferred choice of representatives. Then the "republic" part of that definition kicks in when those elected officials represent their constituents at the federal level.

While Congress is deeply flawed, it is at least a collection of state representatives.

Logic dictates that you cannot defend democracy if you’re trying to remove your competitor from the ballot. Trust the will of the people. And if Trump is as bad as you say he is, then show the evidence. You don't come up with evidence, ever. When he was first impeached, I gave my research staff a very clear directive: Follow the truth, no matter where it leads. If he has done something wrong, then expose it, and we will demand justice. If not, lead with that, and demand justice. Any honest person who votes differently than I do has got to admit the Justice Department has been perverted. Equal justice no longer exists.

The best man can strive for

This is the real key here to understand everything that we've been dealing with that the left and the mainstream media say don't matter. Equality is the key. Equality — not equity. If you overlook facts and choose to selectively shape your view based on somebody's opinion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, you're trying to serve social justice, not equal justice. This social justice uses injustice to fight so-called injustice. Only equal justice can repair what true injustice has broken.

Equal justice. Blind justice. It's the best man can strive for.

But instead of improving our efforts, we have set the bar so low that we continually step over it. We should instead raise the standard and never let anyone from any side slide under it. Will we work together for equal justice, in which Hunter Biden could get a fair trial in the reddest of states and Trump could get a fair trial in the bluest of states? Until we restore truth and equal justice, we will all only continue to promote domestic chaos.