In this article, Mike Davis contrasts the judicial handling of two assassination attempts involving a former president and a current Supreme Court justice, drawing attention to the political divides in the sentencing practices of judges appointed by different administrations. The author argues that a judge appointed by Trump adhered strictly to legal guidelines by sentencing the would-be assassin of Trump to life imprisonment, while the judge appointed by Biden was criticized for allegedly allowing personal biases to dictate a much lighter sentence for an assassin who targeted Justice Kavanaugh.

The piece details the dangerous context in which these assassination attempts occurred, with both incidents reflecting heightened political tensions in the U.S. The author uses these cases to emphasize perceptions of judicial impartiality and the implications of political affiliations on judicial decisions. By pointing to the differences in sentencing, the narrative implies that the latter case undermines the judicial system's integrity, raising concerns about how political ideologies could potentially influence judgments.

Overall, Davis's commentary seeks to connect broader themes of justice and governance to specific cases, calling into question the fairness of the judicial process when subjected to partisan influences. The cases serve as a reminder of the fragility of political discourse in a polarized environment, particularly as it pertains to acts of violence directed at public officials.