One of my biggest criticisms of the Democrat Party has never been rooted in ordinary policy disagreements. Conservatives and leftists will always disagree on taxes, education, healthcare, energy policy, and the size of government. Those debates are normal in a functioning democracy. Even when it comes to issues like abortion, where my moral opposition is strong, that is not what most separates me from Democrats.

My deeper concern has always been institutional.

The modern Democrat Party increasingly presents itself as the defender of democracy while supporting actions that weaken the very institutions that protect it. Democrat leaders frequently frame themselves as guardians of constitutional order. Yet many of the party’s most influential figures have spent years normalizing tactics that undermine equal justice, separation of powers, and public trust in foundational institutions.

The clearest example came during the Biden administration’s legal pursuit of President Donald Trump.

Many Americans watched prosecutors bring multiple cases against Trump while Democrat officials openly celebrated the effort before legal outcomes were determined. New York Attorney General Letitia James built an entire statewide campaign around targeting Trump, famously telling voters that she would “get Trump” if elected.

That should alarm anyone who believes in equal justice. Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes and follow evidence wherever it leads. They are not supposed to begin with a political target and search for a legal theory later.

That approach undermines faith in the justice system by creating the perception that legal institutions are being weaponized for political revenge. Even Americans who dislike Trump should recognize how dangerous that precedent becomes when both parties treat prosecution as a campaign strategy.

The same pattern appears in attacks on the Supreme Court.

After major rulings Democrats opposed, prominent figures, including Adam Schiff and other progressives, openly discussed expanding the Court’s size. Court-packing is a direct attempt to reshape an independent branch of government when rulings become politically inconvenient.

If every party simply expands the Court whenever it loses major rulings, judicial independence becomes meaningless.

The constitutional debate has also shifted in troubling ways. Progressive legal activists frequently defend “living constitutionalism,” the idea that judges should reinterpret the Constitution based on modern social preferences. That philosophy hands unelected judges extraordinary power. It allows courts to function less as interpreters of law and more as policymakers.

Americans do not vote for Supreme Court justices to rewrite the constitutional meaning whenever public opinion shifts.

Republicans have often criticized these institutional threats, which is why the second indictment of James Comey should concern conservatives as well. If Republicans begin mirroring the same behavior they spent years condemning, they will destroy their own credibility.

The reported case surrounding Comey appears heavily tied to his despicable “8647” Instagram post. If prosecutors are seriously pursuing criminal consequences based primarily on vague social media messaging, conservatives should be deeply skeptical unless far stronger evidence exists.

Don’t get me wrong: I have no sympathy for James Comey. He did enormous damage to the country, and much of that damage is difficult to undo. His Instagram post was disgraceful, irresponsible, and revealing. It should never have been posted.

But a bad post is not automatically a criminal case. It would not, by itself, justify a conviction. I hope there is more evidence against him, and I believe the Justice Department is competent enough to understand that an indictment cannot rest on outrage alone. However, if the Instagram post is the entire basis for the case, then that creates a serious problem.

I would not make a final judgment yet. But the standard matters. If this is all prosecutors have, then it is not enough.

A grand jury can indict almost anyone. Conviction requires actual evidence.

If Republicans adopt the same politically aggressive legal tactics they accused Democrats of using, they will validate every criticism made against them and weaken broader conservative arguments about restoring institutional trust.

America cannot survive if both parties treat courts, prosecutors, and constitutional checks as weapons.

The country needs political leaders willing to lose elections and court cases, yet still respect the institutions that make self-government possible. Once both parties decide that those institutions only matter when convenient, democracy becomes far more fragile than either side wants to admit.