In the early morning on June 8, 2022, a California man named Nicholas John Roske was arrested near Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house, with police charging him over threats he made to kill or kidnap a Supreme Court justice.

Such a direct threat against Supreme Court justices is historically almost as unheard of as the leaked draft of the Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson opinion, but both have roiled the political and cultural landscape already inflamed by partisan divisions. While the vast majority of protests were appropriately peaceful and focused on awareness, the vitriol and anger grew so palpable in Washington, D.C., that a fence was erected around the Supreme Court.

With their ability to directly protest the potential ruling curtailed, some online groups like “Ruth Sent Us” instead turned to the tried-and-true tactic of stochastic intimidation, and shared the home addresses of the offending justices. The groups would use the published addresses to organize protests outside the justices’ homes, an act that violates a federal statute against influencing judges’ decisions. This “doxing” of the Justice’s addresses lit a digital beacon out through the internet, inviting anyone willing to descend upon it with them.

The White House has responded to the news of Roske’s arrest with categorical denunciation of his actions, but that is in stark contrast to former press secretary Jen Psaki’s refusal to condemn the sharing of their addresses and the protests outside their homes, glibly saying “We’re certainly not suggesting anyone break any laws.” The ambivalence coming from the White House and certain Democratic leaders hasn’t helped and, if anything, has only legitimized the narrowing of the focus of the anger toward the Justices being targeted. As their proponents argue, these protesters are there for the right reasons, and their passions, though inflamed, are correct.

Given how widely the information became distributed, it isn’t shocking that Roske was able to find Kavanaugh’s address. Roske reportedly told law enforcement that he wanted to “give his life purpose” by killing Kavanaugh, and that he found the address by searching online.

However, the answers regarding his motivations for his actions and how he arrived at them are far murkier, but all too typical of those that are inspired to enact political violence. After his arrest Roske told law enforcement he was driven to these actions out of anger over the leaked draft opinion, and potential rulings Kavanaugh could make in to block gun control after the spate of mass shootings from Buffalo to Uvalde.

While no rational activist or politician would ever outright endorse political violence against an opponent, how much responsibility do they hold for motivating disparate individuals to turn to violence against them? Comments made by Sen. Chuck Schumer from 2020 have resurfaced recently, where he warned Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh directly that they would “pay the price” if they ruled a particular way on a Louisiana abortion lawsuit at the time.

As the Supreme Court is filled with lifetime appointments, what kind of price was Schumer dangling over the justices? We can’t say definitively, because Schumer was deliberately bombastic and vague, but it doesn’t take a genius, only a troubled mind to see a through line and act on it.

Schumer’s style of provocations unfortunately is not unique to him, and are often worded specifically to avoid being specific about who should do something or what they should do. The fact that these events are happening in the shadow of the Jan. 6 hearings only makes the situation even more galling and ironic.

If politicians and pundits can whip up their supporters into believing that political opponents not only lack humanity, but are in fact existential threats to their individual worldview, then any action can be rationalized. That kind of rancor will release a whirlwind we all will reap, one this nation as we know it will not survive.