Commentary

What in God’s name, to use a Biden phrase, do those Washington idiots think they’re accomplishing? 

Members of the House, overwhelming approved 396-27, legislation that would extend police protection to the immediate families of the justices, following legislation approved by the Senate earlier.  And President Biden is expecting to sign it.

It’s just another law that will not get enforced.

For weeks now, protestors have been parading in front of the homes of Justices of the Supreme Court, in violation of Title 18, Section 1507 of the U. S. Code, that references “the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge.

Unbelievably, Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU, said, “Claiming the section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation.”

Individuals found in violation of this law could be fined, sentenced to up to one year in prison, or both, however, President Biden has not commented on the protesting, and Attorney General Merrick Garland, has refused to make arrests; thereby inciting those protests and supporting law-breaking.

On May 11, Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Garland, calling on him to enforce the law, only to receive response from his spokesperson Anthony Coley, stating that Garland “continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justices.

Pointing to the seriousness of the situation, a deranged individual traveled from California to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.

“Nobody doesn’t want to protect the justices of the Supreme Court,” said Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.  “Better late than never,” said Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan.   Just words.

Yes, this new legislation does extend protection to the families of court employees, but without enforcement with arrests it too is meaningless. Just words and photo ops to claim success for a bipartisan bill.

It’s important to note what this is all about.  Someone working in the Court leaked a copy of the draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case, leading to protests in front of the Court itself.  Protests moved to the neighborhoods of the justices when their home addresses were posted on social media.

The Dobbs case refers to a state law in Mississippi that places a ban on abortion after 15 weeks.

While it is generally believed that the leaker is one of 37 clerks, it could have been one of the justices.  Gail Curley, the marshal of the Court, was assigned the task of investigating the leak, but weeks have passed with no results.

In the future, the Court simply cannot function if it is believed their work might be leaked.  The leaker must be identified and punished.  Disbarment and public shame have been suggested to send a message to any potential future leaker who might feel emboldened by lack of action.

While the wild statement on the steps of the Court made by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, clearly inciting harm to the lives of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, has been shown repeatedly over the past weeks, he has not apologized nor asked protestors to leave the neighborhoods of the justices.

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.  You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer

With vivid memories of seeing protestors for one thing or another being interviewed to learn why they are marching; I have to believe that similar interviews of protestors outside the Kavanaugh residence would reveal them to be ill-informed. 

If asked, do you think they would know that abortions would not become illegal if the Court were to overturn Roe?  I seriously doubt it.

Overturning Roe does not automatically criminalize abortion.  It merely returns the abortion debate to the states and democratic process.  Abortion regulations will vary from state to state, where heartbeat, the number of weeks of gestation, and even dismemberment, will be discussed.

Nothing in the constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion, but try to convince protestors of that fact.

In a side note, you should be aware that a Republican Study Committee is endorsing the Heartbeat Protection Act, introduced by Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly, which would defend babies from being aborted once their fetal heartbeat has been detected.

Meanwhile, Democrats are attempting a radical effort to institute taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in all 50 states up to the moment a baby is born.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.