Shame on us, my fellow law-abiding Americans. Apparently, we missed the caveat allowing U.S. attorneys general, as America’s chief law enforcement officers, to refuse to enforce laws with which they disagree; including violations of federal law that pose direct threats to Supreme Court justices and their families.
Oh, yeah — we also missed the part in the presidential oath of office that allows a president to encourage those who violate federal law to continue to do so. Planet Looney Tunes? Nope. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the most inept president in modern history, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
Any questions? Me, too.
Our story began to unfold on Monday night, as reported by my RedState colleague Nick Arama, as radical leftists marched to the home of Justice Samuel Alito in Virginia. While it was unclear if Alito or his family were home, there was a visible police presence outside the generally-conservative justice’s home.
Developing Story - Trump administration oversaw a RADICAL change to the tech world… one that could unleash a huge wave prosperity… and wealth creation in the near future. Find Out More
The protest appeared to be a direct violation of federal law —18 U.S. Code ? 1507 – Picketing or Parading:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Black and white, right? Of course, it is.
So why did White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki last Friday defend the “right” of angry pro-abortion activists to protest outside conservative justices’ homes, as reported by my colleague, Sister Toldjah, during a back-and-forth with Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy?
DOOCY: “So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside [a justice’s] private residence?
PSAKI: “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”
DOOCY: “These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that kind of thing this president wants?”
PSAKI: “The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights.”
Yeah well, Circle-Back. Again, U.S. Code has a very clear position on where people may protest and where they may not, whether you and your boss do or do not. And, P.S.: Why protesters protest makes zero difference, here; the law is the law.
So on it goes, with neither Psaki nor Biden willing to condemn the illegal protests. Toss in Biden’s lackey attorney general, Merrick Garland for the trifecta. Speaking of Garland — the weaselly guy who conservatives can continue to count their lucky stars never became a SCOTUS justice — where the hell has he been? Other than crickets?
As noted by Andrew McCarthy in an op-ed for National Review on Tuesday titled DOJ’s Silence on the Left’s Lawless Intimidation of Supreme Court Justices, the former federal prosecutor slammed the DOJ’s refusal to take enforcement action against radical leftists who continue the protests, blatantly attempting to intimidate and influence the Court over the draft decision striking down Roe v. Wade.
The First Amendment has always permitted reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The degree of permissible restrictiveness is heightened as the government’s interest becomes stronger.
The Constitution insulates the judiciary from politics, so it is obvious that the government has a high interest in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, on which the rule of law depends, by safeguarding judges, jurors, and litigation participants from intimidation and corrupt influence (e.g., pressure to decide a case based on fear rather than on the faithful application of the law).
And what about the shoe-on-the-other-foot hypocrisy test, according to McCarthy?
It is notable that, in connection with the Capitol riot, the Justice Department has prosecuted scores of protesters on charges of parading on restricted federal territory. For analogous reasons, parading is one of the activities proscribed by Section 1507.
In connection with January 6, the Biden Justice Department and the FBI wanted everyone to know it was scorching the earth to hold accountable everyone who could be identified as having violated the law, even if they themselves did not engage in forcible conduct against police or property.
Under Attorney General Merrick Garland’s guidance, prosecutors turned a deaf ear to people who claimed “I was just peacefully protesting,” [even] if the protesting was done under circumstances forbidden by law.
Amen, Andy. A bunch of them.
And what about Biden and his hypocritical crickets — including multiple idiotic comments from his ridiculous press secretary? As Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen, also a weekly columnist for The Washington Post, noted and asked on Tuesday, Protesting at justices’ homes is illegal. What is Biden doing about it?
As Thiessen pointed out, the ongoing protests are not just obnoxious behavior; they are in violation of federal law (18 U.S. Code ? 1507, as outlined at the top). “So what’s Biden doing about it?”, Thiessen asked, rhetorically. Then he spelled it out.
This is a federal statute, so it’s Attorney General Merrick Garland’s responsibility to enforce it. […] Garland declared at the time, “Threats against public servants are not only illegal; they run counter to our nation’s core values.”
Have we missed something else? Are our Supreme Court Justices not public servants? If they are — of course, they are — do blatant attempts to intimidate them not run counter to our core values, let alone violate federal law? (Yes, yes, and hell yes.)
Thiessen then went bottom-line on Garland — as well as our intrepid president, who never met a buck he didn’t eagerly pass as soon as he could.
Garland’s failure to act is an appalling dereliction of duty. So is Biden’s failure to condemn the protests. During his victory speech after the election, Biden declared that it was time “stop treating our opponents as our enemy.” In his inaugural address, he promised to “end this uncivil war” and put “my whole soul” into “bringing America together.”
Not only has he failed to fulfill that promise, he has modeled the bad behavior these protesters are now emulating. When Republicans blocked his partisan election law, Biden accused them of standing with racists and traitors, and called them “enemies” of America, thundering, “I will defend the right to vote, our democracy against all enemies — foreign and, yes, domestic.”
“That sent a signal that our fellow Americans who disagree with us are in fact “enemies” and can be treated as such,” Thiessen correctly noted.
When someone is your enemy, then there is nothing to stop you from showing up at their house to threaten and intimidate them.
As the outrage over the inaction from Biden and Garland’s Justice Department continued to grow on Wednesday, a DOJ spokesman late in the day released a statement declaring Garland has “directed the U.S. Marshal’s Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police.”
So the radical left band plays on. As the pro-abortion activists continue to violate federal law, Psaki and Biden continue to publicly support their “peaceful,” illegal-as-hell actions. Pressure builds on Garland’s DOJ, forcing a spokesman to issue a milquetoast statement that says virtually nothing in detail.
Maybe it’s just me, but this ain’t no way to run a country.
That is unless you’re the most inept president in modern history, surrounded by a band of equally-inept sides, all of whom view their jobs as flying wingmen for the radical left. Who knew?