Naturally, judges in every court across the world are not able to please everyone all of the time. No matter what they decide, there will always be those who will be happy with their verdict and those who are not.

This is the frustration of the world of judgment. For every satisfied customer that the court manages to produce, it automatically also produces another frustrated, sad, angry and resentful customer.

This is definitely a bad system of so-called “Justice”. It fails to produce natural justice for all, as it’s designed only to force social order, not Justice.

It is not a system that was built to truly identify who is guilty and who is innocent, but rather to determine who had more money for a better lawyer.

This is not a method that reduces crime, since the more trials and prisoners there are, the more crime society have, certainly not less. It is merely a method that ensures that police officers, wardens, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges will always have a lot more business, which costs the public so much more money, but does not provide them with peace, security or justice.

Public peace and security is the opposite of the interest of this greedy food chain. Its role is to sell revenge rather than justice. Punishment instead of rehabilitation. A short term of security illusion in exchange for long-term violence, poverty and social disorder.

They make their living from problems, not from solutions. They are “solving” damage caused to one, by causing additional damage to another. Funny wigs, or a Batman-style robe does not hide this primitiveness, but, rather, it emphasizes the detachment of this primitiveness from reality. Their livelihood depends on the hope that there will be more and more crimes and, God forbid, not that crime will stop.

Their wealth and well-being is accumulated only for as long as the public have more and more problems, not less.

And, of course, the blame should not be placed on the lawyers who control this anti-social and unjust business. “It’s only the 99% of the lawyers who give the whole profession such a bad name”.

But we do not have a better system. So we must respect and protect it.

The threats we hear now as a result of the abortion verdict, to harm the lives of judges because of annoying, outrageous and unjust ruling, is crossing the border into hell. Attacking the judges is a dangerous, immoral and wrong response that no public can afford to tolerate.

It’s breaking one of the fundamental elements of the social contract, that stability for us all is dependent on.

It does not solve the real problem of outrageous ruling, but rather turns civilization into a jungle.

The price of enduring a problematic judicial decision is far lower than the terrible consequences of violating the social order provided by the court's illusion of justice.

Yes, judges are neither smarter nor more honest and do not have any better sense of justice than each and every one of us. But respecting their decisions, even when they are annoying, is our social duty. Not for them, but for us.

Today they may rule contrary to our position and tomorrow they will rule in our favour. This is the casino-roulette whose results we should all respect even when it is not to our liking. As long as a ruling is not contrary to the supreme rules of natural justice, it obliges us all. Similarly, even in a case where a ruling violates human rights, it is forbidden even just to to think about harming judges.

The only thing allowed is to violate the unjust ruling, because justice is always above the law, but never to physically attack the judges.

So obviously every woman should be allowed to have an abortion and every doctor is therefore obliged to help her (if it is her wish). And the judges opinion and verdict in this matter has no legal validity, because it violates the exclusive rights of the individual on his or her body, which is located in a territory that is outside the jurisdiction of any court: the private zone.

So a Supreme Court ruling on abortion is not binding, of course, but protecting the safety and security of judges even when they rule contrary to our opinion is the vital interest of us all.

Nothing should allow us even to think about causing physical harm to judges as a reaction of a controversial verdict. God forbid. Nor should we spill the baby with the dirty bath water.

We should not abolish the general authority of the court to continue to make a social order, just because this particular ruling is outrageous and invalid.

Bottom line:

1. Justice is above the law.

Human rights are not subject to laws. The laws are subject to human rights.

2. Private matters are in a territory outside the court jurisdiction.

Every person has the exclusive right to his, or her, body. The opinion of a judge in such a matter is not important and invalid.

3. Protecting the safety and security of judges even when they rule contrary to our opinion is one of the highest public interests of us all.

It is necessary, important and appropriate to put judges in jail who convict innocent people, or those who commit crimes against human rights in their verdicts; because those who demand accountability must also set a personal example. There is no greater deception than that of those with double standards who force others to sanctify rules which they themselves are exempt from.

But such judges must not be physically harmed or denied their right to a fair trial. Their role is essential to society just as the role of a garbage cleaner is so essential to our lives.

4. The American method by which a judge must undergo such an intrusive public inquiry on television as a condition of his appointment, is the best method in the world for appointing judges.

However, a system where a judge serves for a lifetime, when the public has no authority to collect enough signatures to get rid of him, even when the judge clearly turns out to be dumb, corrupt or cruel, is a system that suits a totalitarian state, not a democracy.

In a democracy, the will of the people eliminates the whim of any public servant.

5. The validity of a Supreme Court ruling, which prohibits women who became pregnant as a result of rape from aborting the pregnancy left by the rapist, is void. It has no binding validity as it’s violating the natural sense of justice, and in a personal territory that is outside the judge's jurisdiction.

Forcing a rape-victim to give life and motherhood to the poisoned fruit of her rape is a verdict that is, in fact, a continuous-rape for life - this is much worse than a one-time rape.

6. The Supreme Court is only supreme in the legal hierarchy, but it is obviously below the humanity hierarchy where human rights are supreme, above an opinion of judges, whether it’s a Republican or Democrat, or any other type of a lawyer who found a job as a judge.

7. Doctors must be loyal to the Hippocratic Oath and save every woman from the life sentence the rapist and the judges think she deserves as punishment for being raped.

And if your religion claims otherwise, throw your God to hell, because it is not the real God but the devil who disguised himself as God.