The Senate on Monday voted unanimously in favor of the Supreme Court Policy Parity Act of 2022, which calls for security details to be provided to “any member [of the] immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.” Yet despite, or more likely because of, the massive intimidation campaign going on now, including protests at Supreme Court Justices’ homes, to frighten Justices into voting to uphold Roe v. Wade, House Democrats are dragging their feet about getting the bill passed into law. Could it be that they want the intimidation of the Justices to continue? Of course, they do.
Jen Psaki made it clear that the administration wants the protests at the Justices’ homes when she said Tuesday: “I know that there is an outrage … about protests that have been peaceful to date and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes.” This followed what Psaki said on May 5 when Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked her: “These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the sort of thing this President wants?” Psaki responded: “I think the President’s view is that there is a lot of passion.” In other words, the protests are just fine.
Psaki said this even though such protests are, in fact, illegal, as George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley noted Saturday: “Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending.” But any law is only as strong as the authorities who are willing to enforce it, and it looks as if this particular law has no one willing to enforce it at all.
The House received the bill from the Senate on Monday night. But House Democrats are so terribly, terribly busy — is there a new bill combating hair racism in the works? — that they just haven’t gotten around to taking up the matter. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats were “certainly going to look,” at the bill but refused to give even a hint about when exactly they might actually do so. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who is angling to succeed Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, acted as if the bill was about as high a priority for House Democrats as the question of where the Trump presidential library will be located: “I assume the appropriate committee will review it,” Jeffries said blandly and turned his attention to more important matters.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that “leadership members said on Wednesday they haven’t even read the legislation, which is a single page, and they are now considering a new bill with an added provision that extends the security to the Court’s 40-odd clerks—a provision sure to turn off Republicans.” Clerks? Who is protesting outside the homes of clerks? After all, a clerk was likely the leaker who touched off this intimidation campaign in the first place. The idea that clerks’ homes need special protection is wholly baseless and clearly an attempt to kill this legislation altogether.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed out the obvious: “This partisan bill in the House ignores the good faith work that was being done here in the Senate to build consensus, and expands this legislation to include divisive provisions like potentially extending police protection to the very person who leaked the draft opinion.” Right. That’s because the House Democrats don’t have any interest in working in good faith to build consensus. It is unmistakable: they want the unrest. They want the Justices to be terrified into submission.
The Biden administration will be remembered for many firsts. This was the first administration to have a dotard as its figurehead while the real decisions were made by others behind the curtain. This was the first administration to construct a fake Oval Office for its fake president. This was the first administration to put the needs of illegal migrants over those of American citizens. And this was the first administration to depart from the rule of law and support what is essentially mob rule, applauding as Supreme Court Justices are menaced in hopes of scaring them enough to change their votes to what the mob wants.
If Biden were an American president, however inept and wrongheaded, he would denounce the House’s foot-dragging and call for immediate passage of this bill to increase security for Supreme Court Justices and their families. But he is something else altogether.