Federal law bans activism, such as picketing, protesting or parading, by someone 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,” yet U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has gone mum on pro-abortion near-riots at the homes of sitting Supreme Court justices nearing release of their decision on Roe v. Wade.
Fox News Digital reports that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice failed even to respond to its request for comment on why Garland has refused to address the conflict, and “the reason why protesters have not been arrested.”
The issue arose over the leak – apparently by someone inside the Supreme Court – of a stolen draft opinion reportedly supported by the court’s majority that would, if it becomes final, overturn Roe v. Wade and return regulation of abortion across America to the individual states.
Since then, pro-abortion radicals, including those inside the government, have been trying to protect their industry. There have been threats, acts of vandalism, marches, parades and protests – sometimes nearly turning in riots – outside government buildings and the homes of several of the justices, with the obvious intent of getting at least one justice to change positions.
Fox reported, however, that some of those actions are barred by federal law.
“The Department of Justice is remaining silent on continued protests by abortion activists outside conservative Supreme Court justices’ homes, despite a federal law that makes it illegal to attempt to ‘influence’ federal officials and the outcome of a court case,” the report said.
The “protesters” have been taking their threatening actions to the homes of several of the justices already.
But Fox explained, “Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who ‘pickets or parades’ 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’ near a U.S. court or ‘near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer’ will be fined, or ‘imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’”
The result then?
Garland has not even issued a public statement, much less taken any action.
Andy McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute, explained in the report Garland is silent for the same reason the White House is mum.
“They are elevating their political interest in portraying the draft Supreme Court opinion as extreme over their constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully and protect both the Court and the justices,” he said.
McCarthy went on: “I would note that months ago, when Attorney General Garland unjustifiably dispatched the FBI to investigate parents who were protesting the inclusion of racist and anti-American materials in school curricula, Garland claimed that the Justice Department had an interest in protecting teachers and school administrators. Not only was it untrue that schools were under siege; the relationship between parents and schools is a state and local issue, not a federal one — hypothetically, if a parent were to assault a teacher, it would be a state crime, not a federal one.”
But he told Fox News Digital, “By contrast, the protection of the Supreme Court as an institution, and of the justices’ security, are patently federal matters over which federal law-enforcement has clear jurisdiction. It is inexcusable that the Justice Department is so silent and passive now, when it was loud and active over a manufactured controversy as to which it had no jurisdiction.”
Ian Prior, a senior adviser at America First Legal, also told Fox Garland’s action “says all you need to know about how politicized this Department of Justice is. Despite no records from the FBI about a spike in harassment or threats to schools boards, Merrick Garland weaponized the DOJ against parents a mere four days after the Biden administration received a letter from the NSBA.”
However, he said, “Here you have protesters arguably violating federal law by protesting at Supreme Court justices’ homes to influence a legal decision, and we haven’t heard a peep from Garland.”
The White House said it has no problem with radicals protesting outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes.
Justice Samuel Alito reportedly had to leave his home for a safe location due to the threats posed by protesters.
Pro-abortion forces already have appeared at the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well as Alito’s.
Only a day earlier, WND reported on comments from Wilfred McClay, professor of history at Hillsdale College, who warned the threat to America’s freedom today “is coming from the political left in our own country.”
“The leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion, suggesting that a majority of the justices are on the verge of overturning the most controversial decision in modern history, has unleashed leftist rage and illustrated the movement’s worst anti-democratic impulses,” the commentary explained.
In fact, the White House allowed the rage of leftists to heat up for a full week before – eventually – condemning “violence, threats, or vandalism” being inflicted by rioters on the pro-abortion battle front.
The Daily Wire noted that action followed “days of silence.”
And the comments came only after “vandals” set fire to a pro-life clinic in Wisconsin, threatening, “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.”
In the actual statement, the White House promoted the “fundamental right” of Americans to “express themselves,” but just said it has to be “peaceful and free of violence.”
During the weekend, too, pro-abortion radicals marched to the homes of Roberts and Kavanaugh. While Roberts’ exact position on the ruling isn’t known precisely, Kavanaugh was one of five justices who reportedly were behind the draft opinion that would overturn Roe.
Earlier, leftists had released details about the residences of the justices’ home addresses and more.
Also, churches were under fire, with a Boulder, Colorado, Catholic church being defaced with a hate screed.
McClay noted it was Biden himself who has given impetus to the unreasonable behavior, by ignoring the pro-life movement’s 50-year history of dignified and nonviolent protest, and labeling conservatives the “most extreme political organization” in recent history.
McClay pointed out the protests were less an exercise of “free speech” than a campaign to destroy the independent of justices and institutions that should be protected from politics.
“What we see from the political left today is a rising tide of intimidation, coercion and censorship, epitomized by the Biden administration’s creation of a Disinformation Governance Board, but also by the decision of numerous powerful and politically aligned Big Tech companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like, to disfavor or suppress speakers and viewpoints with which they disagree,” McClay wrote.
He said to move toward a solution first has to be an understanding of the difference between liberalism and leftist. Liberalism simply is a philosophy that affirms freedom and rights of conscience, which the Declaration of Independence confirms as “unalienable.”
The left, he explained, demands control because of its belief “in its capacity to remake the world in its own image – the image of a utopian world based on complete equality of condition.”
“Freedom is not the goal. Hence it is not sufficient for government to give individuals the freedom to speak for themselves, as classical liberalism does. Instead, those individuals must be supplied with the correct opinions and made to say the right things. They can’t be allowed to express opinions that do not support the governing powers. They must, in the chilling but sincere words of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, be ‘forced to be free.’”
It was Douglas Blair of The Daily Signal who was on scene when “dozens of furious marchers” were “hellbent on demonstrating their rage” toward the conservative Supreme Court justices.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.