Donald Trump and Joe Biden both took home classified documents. Yet Trump is prosecuted and Biden is not. Donald Trump was accused of rape. His alleged victim cannot remember what year it happened, said nothing about it for decades, and some of the few details she did provide proved false. Trump maintained his innocence—and the court ruled this amounted to defamation and that he must pay $83 million.

New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on the platform of getting Trump. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” the maxim attributed to Joseph Stalin’s chief of secret police, has come to America. Eventually she found it: Donald Trump took out a business loan, giving banks details of his properties and how much he thinks they’re worth. The banks did their own evaluation, loaned him the money, got paid back, and are eager to keep doing business with him. Yet a New York judge cited absurdly low figures about how much the property was worth and ruled that Mr. Trump committed fraud. He must pay $350 million, plus $100 million in interest. The New York Times admitted it couldn’t find a single example of this law being used where there were no victims. Before launching an appeal Mr. Trump will still have to produce the cash—meaning he’ll probably lose millions in the fire sale. Other businessmen worry they could be fined half a billion dollars if a judge disagrees with their property valuation. New York Governor Kathy Hochul reassured them: “I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.” This is all about getting one man.

But of course others worry, if the law is bent to go after Donald Trump, who will be next?

In his book Civilization, historian Niall Ferguson lists the rule of law as one of the six pillars of civilization. Churchill defined it in basic terms: “The central principle of civilization is the subordination of the ruling class to the settled customs of the people and to their will as expressed in the Constitution.”

Ferguson’s mentor, David Landes, made the same point in his book Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. Landes traces the origins of this principle to the Bible. As early as the Exodus, when Moses’s authority was challenged, he responded: “I have not taken one ass from them, nor have I wronged any one of them.” Any other ruler at that time, if he wanted your donkey, could take it.

Moses instructed judges to be scrupulously impartial so they did not tilt the law in favor of the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17). Like all the Bible’s laws, these are unbreakable laws of cause and effect.

Now, partiality in the law is routine. Police brutally crack down on anti-lockdown protests, but when climate protesters shut down major road networks, they hand out water. In February, a British judge let three women charged with terrorism offenses go free because he sympathized with Hamas. Meanwhile, he sentenced a former police officer to 20 weeks in jail for privately sharing a joke the judge considered racist.

American courts are quick to free Black Lives Matter protesters. After months of nightly, violent demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, in 2020, officials only brought forward 100 cases. A year later, 60 had been dismissed. In many cases, prosecutors will simply drop charges as long as the defendant stays off the police radar for a certain length of time. Those arrested for protesting on Jan. 6, 2021, were not given the same option.

America has always had violent political disagreements. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, after all. The big difference in our time is that the rule of law is no longer considered more precious than these rivalries.

For many, eliminating the rule of law is not an unfortunate by-product of the larger goal of getting Trump. It’s the whole reason they want to get him in the first place.

Barack Obama famously said he wanted to “fundamentally transform America.” Once out of office he complained, “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.” Could such a fundamental transformation mean abandoning the rule of law?

Critical race theory, championed by the radical left, explicitly calls for this. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, in their landmark book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, state that critical race scholars fundamentally disagree with liberalism because “many liberals believe in color blindness and neutral principles of constitutional law.” These scholars “are also highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights.” Laws and rights hold back social justice. Therefore they must go.

God is a Lawgiver. He gives mankind His law, based on principles of love. Obeying it automatically brings blessings. Disobedience causes curses. To the degree that the laws of a human government align with these realities, the nation thrives. Even the existence of the rule of law—the law being above the rulers—leads to stability that does not otherwise exist. And there is no cheating or getting around it.

God’s great adversary, then, opposes law. Even in Christian circles people shy away from discussing the devil. But in describing Satan’s origin, Ezekiel 28:15 says, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created till iniquity [or lawlessness] was found in thee.” Hatred of law is a fundamental part of Satan’s personality.

This lawless being is inspiring the rising tide of lawlessness. For this movement, destroying the rule of law is not collateral damage. It is part of the end goal.