From Court Packing to Leaking to Doxing: White House Yields to a National Rage Addiction

Below is my column in the Hill on the leak and the refusal of President Joe Biden to denounce such conduct. It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.

Here is the column:

Nearly 70 years ago, a little-known lawyer named Joseph Welch famously confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy (D-Wis.) in defense of a young man hounded over alleged un-American views. Welch told McCarthy that “I think I have never really gauged … your recklessness” before asking: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

It was a defining moment in American politics as Welch called out a politician who had abandoned any semblance of principle in the pursuit of political advantage. This week, the same scene played out in the White House with one striking difference: This was no Joseph Welch to be found.

After someone in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a virtual flash-mob formed around the court and its members demanding retributive justice. This included renewed calls for court “packing,” as well as the potential targeting of individual justices at their homes. Like the leaking of the opinion itself, the doxing of justices and their families is being treated as fair game in our age of rage.

There is more than a license to this rage; there is an addiction to it. That was evident in March 2020 when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood in front of the Supreme Court to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name: “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.” Schumer’s reckless rhetoric was celebrated, not condemned, by many on the left, even after he attempted to walk it back by stating that “I should not have used the words I used … they did not come out the way I intended to.”

What occurred at the White House this week is even more troubling. When asked for a response to the leaking of a justice’s draft opinion, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to condemn the leaker and said the real issue was the opinion itself. Then she was asked about the potential targeting of justices and their families at their homes, and whether that might be considered extreme. It should have been another easy question; few Americans would approve of such doxing, particularly since some of the justices have young children at home. Yet Psaki declared that “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest,” adding that “peaceful protest is not extreme.

In reality, not having an official position on doxing and harassing Supreme Court justices and their families is a policy.

Whether protests are judged to be extreme seems often to depend upon their underlying viewpoints. When Westboro Baptist Church activists protested at the funeral of Beau Biden, it was peaceful — but many critics rightly condemned the demonstration as extreme; some even approved of Westboro activists being physically assaulted. When the church brought its case before the Supreme Court, some of us supported its claims despite our vehement disagreement with their views, but 42 senators filed an amicus brief asking the court to deny free-speech protections for such protests. The court ultimately ruled 8-1 in favor of the church.

In this case, the Biden administration and the Justice Department have condemned the court’s leaked draft — but not the threatened protests at justices’ homes, even though those arguably could be treated as a crime. 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. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)

Even if protests at justices’ homes are constitutionally protected, that does not make them right, any more than the lawful Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954 were right.

In 1954, the left was targeted for its political views; today, it is the left which is calling for censorshipblacklisting and doxing. In such moments of reckless rage, presidents often have become calming voices, tempering extremist passions in their own parties. When they have failed to do so, history has judged them harshly, as in the case of President Eisenhower’s belated condemnation of Sen. McCarthy, something he reportedly regretted for the rest of his life.

President Biden has repeatedly shown that polls, not principles, guide his presidency. He showed integrity as a senator by denouncing court packing as a “bonehead … terrible, terrible” idea. However, he has stayed silent as today’s Democrats have pushed to pack the court with an instant liberal majority, a demand that increased this week. Biden long supported the Senate’s filibuster rule and said efforts to eliminate it would be “disastrous” — but when today’s mob formed, he flipped and denounced the filibuster as a “relic” of the Jim Crow era.

Even on abortion, Biden has shifted with the polls. He once opposed Roe v. Wade and supported an amendment that would negate the decision. At the time, he declared that “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” Now President Biden has switched his position without really switching his logic. He recently declared that he supported Roe because “I’m just a child of God; I exist” and thus can decide what happens to his body. Accordingly, he denounced the Supreme Court’s draft opinion as “radical” and affirmed the right of a woman “to abort a child.

Whether it is court leaking, packing, doxing or other tactics, many Democratic politicians and pundits continue to follow the mob rather than risk its ire.

Our national addiction to rage is captured in three indelible images. In June 2020, there was the White House surrounded by security fencing after nights of arson and rioting; in January 2021, Congress was surrounded by the same fencing after rioting that momentarily halted the certification of the presidential election. Now the set is complete with photos of the Supreme Court encased in the same fencing.

All three branches, having to be protected from enraged citizens on the left or the right.

Schumer’s 2020 pledge that justices would “pay the price” has been realized as they and their families are now bunkered in their homes. Despite the shocking image of a court system under attack, President Biden has not mustered the courage to dissuade these protesters. He appears to be following the lead of French revolutionary Abbe Sieyes, who watched as his 1789-99 revolution spun out of control; asked what he had done during “the Terror,” he replied: “I survived.”

President Biden is now in survival mode, too. It seems he does not lack decency, just the courage to defend it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

340 thoughts on “From Court Packing to Leaking to Doxing: White House Yields to a National Rage Addiction”

  1. The anger in the country against the Democrat Party leadership, the entire Democrat Congress, the filth that is the Biden administration’s anit-American destructive, harmful policies is now rising to fever pitch. You WILL feel the WRATH of the people come November. The Democrat Party and its corrupt media allies are the Enemies of the American People. YOU WILL BE PUT IN YOUR PLACE you Anti American POS.


    2. Push the documentary 2000 Mules, so people have a place to rally around even if they are Democrats. When they see their vote didn’t count because of overwhelming illegal voting for Biden and other Democrats, the honest Democrats will say they had enough as well.

      I understand there is protesting in Pennsylvania by the left because people are talking about stopping Ballot Trafficking, which is illegal and cost Trump Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.

      We saw Jan 6, which was relatively peaceful, but after seeing 2000 Mules, I now know Biden was illegally put into office. I used to think that was a possibility, but we didn’t have a proof for the numbers. Now we do.

      1. Just finished. There were only a few things I did not know.

        But it was very well done.
        One of the things I did not know was the scale of the evidence they had – 16trillion cell phone pings and 4million minutes of Government Ballot Box Surveillance video.

        I was also unaware they had deliberately excluded mailboxes because there is no question what is being put into a ballot box is a ballot.


        Instead of Gorka, Prager, Metaxis, Elder, … as the panel, they needed to present this to ordinary voters – preferably democrats.

        The Whistle blower came off as untrustworthy and self serving – on one hand she claimed to have lost a friend over unwillingness to let someone else collect her ballot years earlier, on the other she took a job that involved depositing ballots collected by others.

        They did not go into much depth on many parts of this – i.e they pretty much proved there were a massive number of ballots being pick up from public interest groups and deposited in ballot boxes – which is undeniable fraud. But they were much weaker on where these ballots came from. Much of that is of necescity – it requires a law enforcement investigation with subpeona power to go further than they did.

        Next they mention the 2018 NC election that was tossed over Ballot harvesting – but they do not address their own role in that.

        TTV should have done their best to provide proof they look into voting fraud – regardless of party.

        Next they should have bought data for heavily republican areas in the same states and looked for similar patterns.
        They also should have looked at democrat and republican 501C3’s in Both republican and democrat strongholds.

        i.e was this problem confined to democrats ? And was it confined primarily to the six major metropolitan areas that flipped the election ?

        They do not need to look accross the country – but they should have picked one state and looked at the entire state for both parties and all election related 501C3’s

        It was also intersting the Ballot Fraud in PA was greater than all 5 other states combined.

        That actually does not suprise me – I live in PA there are STILL 275K more ballots than voters from 2020. And people are convicted of election fraud in Philadelphia every year. regardless, Mailin Ballot haresting was new to PA – large scale election fraud is not.

        1. John B. Say,

          “ They did not go into much depth on many parts of this…”

          They didn’t go into much depth because there was none. It’s all dependent on assumptions and hearsay. Precisely why courts dismissed the majority of these claims. That’s the problem with these kinds of films. It’s just a rehash of previous debunked claims.

          “ TTV should have done their best to provide proof they look into voting fraud – regardless of party.”

          They didn’t have proof that is the universal problem these groups keep running into. Just assumptions based on anonymous cellphone data. They are arguing that an absence of evidence IS evidence.

          “ TTV should have done their best to provide proof they look into voting fraud – regardless of party.”

          There was no ballot fraud in PA. Those seeking an audit are claiming there is without any proof.

          Republicans in PA. want a private company with no experience in election audits to perform a forensic audit of Fulton county’s voting machines. It’s the same boneheaded attempt at an audit that Arizona tried to do.

          The lack of a accreditation for election audits is what undermined the credibility of Arizona’s audit. Why would it be any different in PA?

          “ I live in PA there are STILL 275K more ballots than voters from 2020.”

          That issue had been addressed a long time ago. It wasn’t what it is claimed to be.

          1. Svelaz – I do not know how to say this better than “Your Full of $hit”.

            You have no idea what evidence is.

            What hearsay is.

            You are constantly saying that something has been disproven in court which has never been adjudicated.

            With respect to PA – I live in PA, There is large scale ballot fraud in PA every single election.

            Philadelphia has an election fraud reputation possibly worse than Chicago.

            Regardless, during the 2020 election a PA election official plead guilty to large scale ballot fraud in several prior years elections.

            There are atleast two different undercover post election videos of PA election officials destroying election records – violates federal law, and admitting to significant fraud.

            There are myriads of allegations of Fraud in PA – None have been investigated at all. PA currently has a democrat as AG, and the places the fraud occured are controlled by democrats with democrat DA’s. There is absolutely no means to get an investigation.

            Further PA had probably the most lawless election in the country.

            The PA constitution prohibits mailin elections, it also prohibits no excuse absentee voting.

            There is a distinction between absentee voting and mailin voting.
            The differences is that to vote absentee – YOU come to the courthouse at a time other than election day to vote.
            But you vote in the same manner as you would on election day – you present ID, you are given a ballot, you vote in the courthouse and you seal and turn over the ballot. Ballots do not ever leave the oversight of election officials.
            In PA you can constitutionally vote absentee – if you can prove one of the reasons listed in the constitution, or additional specific reasons approved by the legislature. Pandemic is not one of those.

            The PA constitution prohibits any form of election where ballots leave the direct oversight of election officials.

            The following are REQUIRED of every election in PA (as well as 38 other states, including every “swing state except NV)

            1). an official ballot being printed at public expense,
            2). on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
            3). being distributed only at the polling place and
            4). being marked in secret.

            Every state in the US before 2020 met these requirements EXCEPT
            North Carolina – which comes very close.
            WV which provides voters with the rarely used option of an “open ballot” at the voters request.
            Some states use caucuses for PRIMARIES only.
            Colorado, Oregon and Washington – which have mailin voting.

            Mailin voting does NOT meet the requirements above – which are written into the constitution of almost 4/5 of the country.

            Mailin voting is unconstitutional in nearly all of the country.

            The above requirement also called “secret balloting” or Austrailian balloting are not only near universal in the US.
            They are near universal in the world.

            These requirements exist – because there was massive election fraud in the 19th century.

            Businesses, unions political parties printed their own prefilled out ballots and coerced or induced people into turning those in.
            Even the US army provided prefilled in ballots for soliders and both voting and using the approved ballot was enforced by officers.

            In the democratic primary in 2020


        2. John, not only did they exclude mailboxes, but they excluded all dropbox deliveries that didn’t come from specific non-profits. They excluded mules with less than ten deliveries. Who goes to drop boxes ten times or more. Imagine if they only excluded less than 3 drop boxes. Imagine if they included more areas? Then Biden’s loss would have been even more significant. They underestimated, which makes the numbers that much more powerful.

          The panel: There are different stories for different folk. I think this might have to do with the size of nodes. I think you understand what I am talking about without explanation.

          Whistleblowers: They are not law enforcement. Law enforcement needs to evaluate the 4 million minutes of video surveillance and interview those involved in the crime. Law enforcement needs to follow up on the data. It is more than enough for convictions and to show Biden lost. Remember, some of the mules were hardened criminals, and jail terms can be around the corner for anyone involved.

          “But they were much weaker on where these ballots came from.”

          Actually, they were pretty strong when dealing with criminal behavior and illegal trafficking. One doesn’t need to see the ballot being created. The ballots ended up in the non-profit centers. Then various mules took those ballots to the ballot boxes. That is illegal ballots trafficking according to the laws in all 50 states. Therefore, they proved the illegality of all those ballots. There was no chain of custody of the ballots, which is necessary for legality.

          “TTV should have done their best to provide proof they look into voting fraud – regardless of party.”

          There are limited amounts of money and time available. Another is free to do that if they wish. All the data is there, but one already has a history of corrupt activity, and now it was documented. It doesn’t appear much would change if they assed the entire country. Such assessment is far beyond their ability and perhaps even law enforcement’s ability. The claim was the ‘election was the most secure.’ It wasn’t. Biden lost.

          Svelaz writes below: “They didn’t go into much depth because there was none.”

          By now, everyone recognizes that what Svelaz writes has nothing to do with the facts, the truth or the logic. He is a stupid fellow. The video is not aimed at him. It is aimed at the public to recognize that the election was NOT secure and secondarily that Biden lost. Both were reasonably proven.

          What site did you get the video on?

  2. We could not despise Joe Biden and his entire incompetent America-hating corrupt lying administration more. The American people are not with you Joe Biden, you demented liar. You and Kamala WILL feel the wrath of the American people in November. Because you both suck. FJB. It cannot be shouted loudly enough across this great country: FJB!

  3. Jen Psaki is a piece of work who deserves a massive smack down by public opinion that puts her decisively in her place. At the bottom. You psuck Psaki. Good riddance.

  4. Judge’s Ruling Limits Durham’s Case

    A federal judge has turned down a request from Special Counsel John Durham for a ruling that a lawyer facing trial on a false statement charge was part of a wide-ranging “joint venture” involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Democratic operatives, private investigation firm Fusion GPS and various technology researchers.

    The decision issued Saturday afternoon by U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper limits evidence and testimony prosecutors can offer against attorney Michael Sussmann at a jury trial set to get underway later this month.

    The ruling spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee the potential embarrassment of a federal judge finding they were part of a coordinated effort to level since-discredited allegations that candidate Donald Trump or his allies maintained a data link from Trump Tower to Russia’s Alfa Bank.

    Cooper spent part of his ruling explaining why he wouldn’t permit the government to introduce highly technical data about the data gathered by Joffe and his researchers, unless Durham provides more evidence Sussmann was aware of the technicalities and any obvious flaws in it when he presented it to the FBI.

    Edited From:
    Turley didn’t care to tell us about this development. But it seems the judge felt Durham was overreaching here; attempting to create a case within a case involving unnamed conspirators.

      1. The last time we discussed Wheeler, she ended up sounding like a far-left Nina Totenberg type. I think she was smarter a good while back (wrong then) and could explain her ideology better. Today she has been caught in the red tide of the Democrats and now can’t cut loose..

    1. Turley will only care about the Durham case if Sussman is found to have lied. So far Durham has been relying on a conspiracy theory and the judge just undermined that premise of his case against Sussman.

      1. I am guessing that you are citing the recent ruling by cooper that excluded SOME evidence that Durham wished to introduce.

        Cooper ruled that evidence could not be introduced because Sussman was not charged with conspiracy.

        If you try someone for murder, you can not introduce evidence of rape – even if they committed the rape.

        Cooper ACTUALY said there appeared to be good evidence of a conspiracy – but Sussman was not charged with conspiracy.

        This is a small loss for Durham and Cooper was correct.

        Further I doubt Durham expected to win.

        The message Durham is sending to the court, to sussman, and to the public – is “I have found a conspiracy, and I am likely to charge conspiracy in the future”.

        Much of what is going on now is PROPER means of trying to get Sussman to plead and to provide evidence against others.

        The legal games now are mostly NOT about the trial.

    2. The ruling was technical.

      The judge actually wrote that there was evidence of a conspiracy, but that Sussman was not charged with conspiracy.

      If you are charged with murder – the prosecutor can not claim at trial that you also raped someone – unless you are also charged with rape.

      Durham has had a long winning streak with Cooper – you are not going to get everything.

      If Durham wants to present evidence of a conspiracy he needs to charge one.

  5. I believe Professor Turley is trying to tell us that the left is whacked out of it’s mind. Coo-coo. Nuts.

            1. I dont have a problem with either. I think we should get OUT of there and let them fight themselves.

              1. You don’t have a problem with Nazis? Wow.

                As for Communists, Russia has tried to interfere with our elections, Putin has poisoned some of his opponents. Communists in both Russia and China are responsible for other human rights violations. You don’t have a problem with that?

                1. Russia never interfered in our elections. That is garbage propaganda from the Commies.
                  I do not have a problem with either Russia OR Ukraine.
                  Putin ‘poisoned’ his opponents? Well, Hillary shoots here opponents in the head a couple times. As does Obama.
                  “Human rights violations?”
                  63 million dead babies are screaming from the ground in USA. Hundreds of thousands of little girls and boys are abducted and sold into slavery here in USA.
                  Physician, heal thyself.

  6. We’re supposed to believe Turley is outraged at the “lack of policy” on “doxxing” Supremes? What was ANY administration’s policy on that?
    And this is the same guy who didn’t express any concern over a sitting President refusing to leave office after losing an election.
    I can’t believe what a hack this guy has become.
    I really hope he is being very well paid by some anarcho-capitalist because the idea that he’s a lawyer of the BAR is sickening.

    1. And this is the same guy who didn’t express any concern over a sitting President refusing to leave office after losing an election.

      There would have to be a President that refused to leave office for him to express that concern. He’s not some lying Leftist hack that just makes $hit up, ala Schiff.

      1. Olly,

        You’ll be delighted to know that I take issue with Schiff for a recent tweet in which he belittled the leak. I don’t. I agree with Turley that it was horrendous. I hope they find the conservative culprit.

        I also strongly disagree with his tweet wherein he claimed that a few conservative justices “who lied

        1. decades ago I read a book – I beleive it was called “the devils advocate”.
          In it patriots resisting a totalitarian regime recruited one of their own to infiltrate the regime.
          He rose in the ranks to the top position by being the worst of the worst.
          Thus pushing people to revolution.

          Often I wonder is Schiff is the devils advocate – deliberately being the worst he possibly could be to drive people to conservatism.

          Regardless, I want him arround – as the poster boy for stupid.

          1. The world will little note nor long remember the name, John B. Say, if that is your real name, but Schiff will go down in history as having led the first Impeachment of Donald Trump, the “absurd reality television star” as Turley himself dismissed him.

            1. I certainly prefer Schiff to a lot of Republican Reps., and also to “John.” (It’s not his real name. He used to have his real name posted on his gravatar link.)

              1. You can prefer serial killers if you want – that just reflects badly on your.

            2. To his shame.

              Schiff will be remembered for impeaching Trump for seeking an investigation that was justified at the time into the corrupt conduct of the Biden family that is smeared all over the place.
              And I forgot – Barr was ALREADY investigating at the time – because there was more than sufficient evidence to start and investigation.

              And what was Trump asking about ? Biden’s efforts to BLACKMAIL Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was going after a business that had paid the Biden family protection money. This would be the same Biden that subsequently got Ukraine invaded by Russia.

              Have you no shame.

              Smart left wing nuts would not bragg about a very embarrasing faux paux.

              1. God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I appeal to your holy name, humbly begging your kindness, that you may graciously grant me help against this unclean spirit now
                tormenting me – through Christ our Lord.

            3. I have posted on under two names. 99.999% of the time under JBsay – an OBVIOUS pseudonym (famous 19th century economist, Says law, law of supply and demand). And on incredibly rare occasions several years ago when I was having wordpress issues under a different name briefly.

              If you get some thrill out of doxing me – go at it, it is not hard.

              You seem to think something nefarious is going on.

              How does anyone know you are jeff silberman ? Why would anyone care ?

              1. I cast you out, unclean spirit, along with every satanic power of the enemy!

                Every spectre from hell!

                Every savage companion!

                It is Christ who commands you!

                He who flung you headlong from the heights of Heaven!

            4. You do know that nearly everyone here is posting under a pseudonym ?

              1. Depart, you monster!

                Your place is in solitude!

                Your abode is in a nest of vipers!

                Get down and crawl with them!

                It is God Himself who commands you!

      2. … about their plans to the Senate.” (Sorry about my misfiring) They may have downplayed their objections to Roe, but they could not, should not and did not make any promises at their hearings about how they would rule on Roe.

        All that being said, I nonetheless trust Schiff more so than Turley, I’m sad to say.

        1. You trust Schiff ?

          You really are an idiot.
          No one has lied anywhere near the scale he has.
          No one has done more damage to this country than he has.

          1. Let’s just say I trust Schiff more than a lying Trumpist like yourself. Capisce?

            1. The above comment shows a brain damaged by listening to MSLSD. And Morning Joe. It is unbearable to most brains. But the above nonsense is what happens to those who consume it regularly. The poisoning of the American mind.

            2. When you make an accusation of moral failure the duty to prove your claim rests with YOU,
              If you fail you are not merely wrong, YOU have committed to moral failure.

              So what Lie have I told ?

              Everyone know the big lies schiff has told.

              And STILL not a trumpist.

              Did not vote for him – ever.
              Do not think he was a particularly good president, unfortunately he was the best president in the 21st century.
              Because the rest were so bad.

              But I will expose lies and errors made by others – about Trump or anything else.

              1. God who has power to bestow life after death and rest after toil. I humbly entreat vou to deliver me from the unclean spirit.

          2. I agree 100% Schiff is anti American . Some haven’t researched this sick individual .

          3. Trump has lied more than Schiff. This is a factual matter.
            Who has done more damage is a matter of opinion, and plenty of people have a different opinion than you, John.

            1. Youve lied more than Hillary in her entire coat-riding career, which is say alot.
              Carry on

            2. What Trump lies are you talking about? We have all heard Schiff’s lies discussed on this blog but not Trump’s. One wonders why. Don’t answer. You too will sound silly.

            3. If it is a factual matter you should be able to list consequential lies.

              Like “I was spied on” – nope wrong, not a lie.
              Like “witch hunt” – nope wrong not a lie.
              Like “more than circumstantial evidence” – nope wrong liar.
              Like “I did not have sex with that woman” – wrong liar again
              Like “If you like your doctor you can keep them” – darn wrong liar again.
              Like “Inflation is Putin’s fault” – ugh – wrong liar again
              Like “I did not talk with my son about his business dealing” – Frack – wrong liar again.
              Like “most secure election ever” – wrong liar again.

              Lots and lots of liars – and none of them are Trump.

              Now biting the dust is there was no fraud in 2020.

              Apparently “the Big Lie” is that accusations of fraud in 2020 were a lie.

      1. TMJ, keep pushing the documentary to everyone. Even those who hate Trump will become enraged if enough people see it. We don’t fight for Trump. We fought for the country while the Democrats of today fight to destroy the country. They are not the same Democrats as existed when JFK was around.

        They cheated in the 2020 election big time, and we let them get away with it. They riot over the nation, and we let them get away with it. They rioted in DC, and we let them get away with it. We let them lie and cheat while Trump was in office, and we let them get away with it. Now, our Supreme Court Justices have to be afraid of being killed by leftists. Alito and his family were removed to a safe house, and these swine are still getting away with it.

        Listen to Anonymous the Stupid, who fans the flames by calling Alito a Right-wing lunatic. It’s time that people pay the price for their words. How would Anonymous the Stupid feel if his life were threatened? We don’t do that, but people like Anonymous the Stupid do. The nation needs to act now. 2000 Mules is a point that all good people on the right and the left can agree on and rally around. There are cheats and liars that are now trying to ruin the nation. They must be stopped.

          1. That’s why they set him up and sent him to prison for things that Democrats like Rosie O’Donnell do. Rosie never went to prison though. She is progressive. The left takes political prisoners, just like other dictatorships do.

          2. Didn’t he plead guilty to felony criminal campaign violations? Why would anyone trust a criminal?

      2. I suspect that Trump will eventually be charged in a conspiracy to obstruct the vote count. Time will tell.

        1. That is your opinion. It’s a lie. It is how you cheat and deceive. It is how the left acts. Or should I say it is how the left acts when they wish to be seen as peaceful. Otherwise it is rioting in the streets, killing, looting and threatening Supreme Court Justices. That is who you really are.

        2. Im sure you Commies will do that.
          Truth remains that thousands of criminals stole the votes. 10000% evidence is on that movie.
          Of course, I am a blogger and saw what you all did.
          Nobody hardly voted for President $5.77 Gasoline.
          Ciao Commie-Crat.

        3. Left wing nuts are capable of all kinds of stupid charges.

          A democratic prosecutor charging a conservative with anything is practically a badge of honor.

  7. Nutacha.

    I have two kids. Both are adopted.

    There are purportedly 2M LGBTQ couples looking to adopt – and they are NOT even close to the largest group seeking to adopt.
    There are only 435K kids available for adoption in the US.

    Large numbers of kids are in foster care and age out of foster care – but that is because we make adoption impossibly hard – punishing both the kids and parents.

    The largest single group of prospective adoptive parents is practicing Christians – 5% of all practicing Christians in the US have adopted today – that is double any other group. 38% of practicing Christians are seeking to adopt.

    1. John,

      Grow up and spell Natacha’s name correctly.

      Women are not broodmares to create infants for people looking to adopt.

      1. You grow up ya nincompoop. She *is* a Nutchacha for God’s sake. That is obvious to everyone. It is not even her real name. Sheesh. Get with the program ya whiner.

      2. Uh, yeah they are worse than brood mares. They are uterus’-for-hire. Have you not heard about how the rich and wealthy and gay are having babies and starting families these days? Surrogates. Creating babies for couples who are unable to cocreate a baby on their own. Sheesh. Get with the program.

      3. It is trivial and cheap to avoid getting pregnant.
        PP provide condoms and birth control cheap – or free if you can not afford it.
        Failing that the morning after pill is OTC and cheap.

      4. nutacha made the argument that those evil conservatives did not give a crap about babies after they were born – this is false.

        There is no requirement for anyone to provide children for others by force.

        But it is false to claim that if the biological parent of a child does not want them – no one will.

        The problem is the opposite, there is far more people looking for children than children available, and worse the government makes it nearly impossible to adopt those.

        The thoughtless and erroneous argument is nutacha’s

  8. “President Biden is now in survival mode, too. It seems he does not lack decency, just the courage to defend it.”
    What’s the difference? Indifference in times when courage is demanded is the vilest immorality and worst abdication of manhood. Dante gave it the deepest and last circle of Hell for good reason. Lucifer was imprisoned there along with the manhood of these traitors to blood and country. I have no idea if the great Italian poet visited Hell but I suspect his account is more observation than allegory. At least, I hope so.

  9. Turley– “even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it.”

    It could be that Biden doesn’t condemn the disgraceful and unethical acts because his administration is behind them.

    But Roberts? He could end it by resolving the case now along the lines of Alito’s opinion.

    Every day he delays more outrageous pressure will be brought to bear on the entire Court. He seems a coward trapped by clashing tides of opinion that threaten to become tides of violence.

    Roberts’ legacy is a much diminished Court. Even lower federal courts seem contemptuous of it. His is a legacy of institutional decay.

    1. Young, Biden is supposed to side with Alito to show he’s ‘not a coward’??

      Alito’s a far-right wacko. ‘Why’ would Biden side with him?? Your comment only makes sense to QAnon types of which I’m sure you are one.

      1. To an American Hating Commie/Fascist I just imagine the normal person Alito might appear to you as a far-right wacko.

        2000 Mules, watch & learn, you’re people’s Bull Sheet isn’t selling this year.

        1. Oky1, thanks for mentioning 2000 Mules. Everyone on this blog should be talking about it. The discussion should be non-stop because it shows the criminality of the left.

          We argue and say how things aren’t fair, but in Pennsylvania, where they are trying to stop the same fraud that occurred in 2020, the left is fighting for the sole reason they can cheat. Pennsylvania would have gone to Trump if they didn’t cheat in 2020, and now they are cheating again.

    2. As I have argued before, Roberts should insist that the Justices resolve this matter now. Unless DOJ acts to charge demonstrators under 18 USC 1507, and organisers with conspiracy to violate 1507 (which it will not do), the demonstrations will continue and the risk of violence will grow. The logic leads to assassination of at least one of the five Justices said to be in the majority: that would both preserve Roe/Casey and change the balance on the court. To avoid escalation, the decision should be made, the opinions published and the judicial uncertainty put behind us.

      1. Why do you assume Roberts has that power?

        The Justices should get on with their work and not be pressured by people outside the court — not by those objecting to the draft, not by those supporting the draft, not by those insisting that they release the final opinion earlier than they would otherwise, …

        The DOJ cannot charge demonstrators under 18 USC 1507 unless the DOJ has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the demonstrators have the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or … the intent of influencing any judge … in the discharge of his duty.” It is legal for demonstrators to voice their anger about the draft, legal for demonstrators to share their views with the general public, …, and unless there is clear evidence of the intent specific in the text of the law, then the demonstrators are not violating 1507.

        The leaks say that Roberts also wants to rule in favor of MS. But none of us knows, and none of us should pretend to know where the court’s decision is right now.

        1. I am confident that Roberts could get a majority to agree on a date that the decision will be announced and opinions published. Any opinion not finished by that date would not be published. This is an unprecedented situation and the exercise of firm authority is called for.

          1. I think your proposal would be as egregious a betrayal of the court’s norms as the leak.

            But neither of our opinions matters squat in their decision-making.

            1. The history of the German saboteurs case, Ex parte Quirin, shows that the Supreme Court can immediately issue a decision, after a vote of the justices, months before opinions are published.

            2. “betrayal of the court’s norms”

              If anyone reads the words of Anonymous the Stupid, they will see similarities in how he approaches things and how the great leftist murderers acted similarly.

              Earlier anonymous called Alito a right-wing lunatic. That is meant to stir up the hornets.

        2. JT, Daniel, Anonymous, and others, Does 18 USC 1507 violate the first amendment? If not, should we wary of prosecutions under that statute in the current situation given the fundamental principles of free speech and the right to protest that JT has strongly advocated for in other contexts? Thanks.

          1. Courts have struck down more general laws about protesting in or near a courthouse, but 18 USC 1507 makes the intent to obstruct justice / influence a judge central to whether the person has broken the law, and they’ve upheld similar laws. See the contrast between the following rulings:
   — striking down a law that’s too general
   — upholding a similar state law

            I’d bet that some of the people who object to these demonstrators — assuming that their goal is to influence SCOTUS — are also defending the people charged with obstruction of Congress on J6.

        3. “It is legal for demonstrators to voice their anger[.]” When voicing “anger” takes the form of intimidating families, then it should be viewed as criminal. Anger is not an excuse for anything and everything. The nationalistic Japanese army officers, who assassinated peace-loving Japanese politicians prior to WWII, were “expressing their anger.”

          1. voice, verb: express (something) in words.

            Assassination is not expression in words.

            The non-violent expression of anger is legal for both anti-abortion protesters and pro-choice protesters.

      2. The judicial protection bill named for the son of federal judge Esther Salas — whose only son, Daniel Anderl, was murdered and whose husband was shot several times at their home by an antifeminist former defendant in 2020 — is still sitting in Congress.

        The U.S. Marshals Service says that there were ~4,500 threats towards judges in the preceding year.

        All judges need protection. And society needs better mental health treatment.

    3. I agree – ironic, isn’t it, since Roberts’ focus has always been on maintaining the Court’s honor and reputation?

  10. Today’s news shows that the five justices and their families are now potential assassination targets. The history of the German saboteurs case, Ex parte Quirin, shows that a Supreme Court case can be decided by a mere vote of the justices, months before the opinions are published. Issuing a decision now would eliminate the threat to the justices and their families.

    1. The news doesn’t show that.

      It’s rumor mongering.

      Ilya Shapiro said he’d heard that, and others repeated it as fact. But Shapiro later said he was unsure whether it was true: “I don’t have any non-public sources.” “I forget whether I saw the rumor on Twitter or somebody told me. I don’t know.”

        1. You certainly haven’t presented any statement from the Court or other evidence of that.

        2. Lysias, the dope below, presumably ATS, says you haven’t provided evidence. Alito didn’t move himself and his family because there wasn’t a threat. The left is violent. Expect violence in the streets before the election. Expect more dropbox fraud. We saw it in 2020, and by numbers most favorable to Democrats, Biden lost the Presidential election 2020. The evidence is on the screen.

          If we don’t want that to happen again, we must stop the ballot box fraud for the midterms—defeat one of the main plans of Democrats. Ballot Trafficking is illegal in all 50 states.

          See 2000 Mules to discover how the fraud was done and for near-absolute proof that Biden lost. Push the movie so people are aware of the Democrat criminality.


    By persisting and incessantly continuing to develop, the embryo, fetus and BABY speaks for himself and says, “My body, my choice,” – that he wants to live and he wants to be born.

    Ask the baby and he tells you, by persisting, that he chooses life.

    “Just the facts, ma’am.”

    – Sergeant Joe Friday

    The truth.

    The whole truth.

    And nothing but the truth.

    So help you God.

  12. I’m sensing that many Americans would prefer elected representatives be the ones making law concerning abortion policy.

    The fringes on both ends of the spectrum would prefer to obtain their policy preference “by any means necessary”. This includes ceding the power of policy to the Supreme Court, but only when it delivers the desired policy — anything less is “legislating from the bench”, or suggests Court packing to realign the majority (and I include the refusal to give Merrick Garland a Senate hearing) a court-realignment tactic.

    So, a Dobbs decision to shift abortion policy back into the political-elected branches might be a wise decision. But, the success of that decision rests on how best to hand off that power? It can be done irresponsibly to consequences, leading to chaos. Or, SCOTUS could provide a roadmap for the handoff of abortion policy that gives a measure of stability and confidence.

    Showing a preference for unleashing a period of conflicting state laws over the legality of abortion is a recipe for chaos. These will bring “proxy” lawsuits back into the federal courts — things like freedom of interstate travel to receive abortion care, use of USPS and couriers for medicated abortion pills, and the ability to sue actors in a state where abortion services are legal. Nothing in such a Dobbs decision as presaged by Alito will give the lower courts guidance on how to handle state-vs-state proxy suits, and they’ll wind up at the Supreme Court.
    That runs against the responsibility of SCOTUS to protect the Federal Courts from predictable chaos.

    The alternative, to call out Congress’ responsibility, citing the advantages of a uniform national abortion policy (even if it differs from Roe), would be a more sensible roadmap for change.

    Finally, the Court’s credibility rests on “What should be the interim policy?” It would make perfect sense to declare “Roe and Casey are downgraded to interim law until Congress can pass a national policy into law, or if they cannot do so by the end of 2024, Roe and Casey shall expire allowing the every State policy control”. This would come down right in the middle, with neither side able to claim victory. It would still allow the Alito majority their criticism of how Roe was improperly decided, and retract the Court’s support for Roe in an orderly, incremental fashion. It would give predictability about how abortion policy will operate during the transition of power to legislators. It would allow a midterm election cycle to occur where national abortion policy is on the agenda for the next Congress. It would set a precedent of giving Congress a time-limit to legislate in an area where they have shirked responsibility far too long. It will strip Congress of the excuse that 1973 SCOTUS declared a Constitutional right to abortion.

    I hope the black-robed eggheads can muster some common sense about how to guide the country through this period of change in a thoughtful manner. I hope a majority can see the responsibility of the Court more broadly than to destroy what came before — rather, to build constructively something better.

    1. Yeah, except that abortion, up to the age of fetal viability, is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT, not a fad. If the rationale behind taking away these rights holds (i.e., that it’s not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, and that it’s not long-standing), then states can go back to banning things like contraception (there’s already movement towards banning IUDs and Plan B), interracial marriage, marriage equality and sexual acts between consenting adults that others don’t approve of. Each of these rights and liberties is protected under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments, as rights of individual freedom and privacy. States have previously banned each of these things before. The simple fact is that if you have the rights of privacy and liberty to decide about your reproductive freedom, whom you are allowed to fall in love with and marry, and the right to engage in sexual acts with another consenting adult, no state can ban these things. There is no individual state interest in any of these things.

      1. The ruling in Dred Scott “established” a “Constitutional protection,” too…until the ruling was reversed. And, as I’m sure you know, there is no explicit “right to privacy” spelled out in the Constitution.

      2. “Yeah, except that abortion, up to the age of fetal viability, is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT, not a fad.”

        Why would that be the case ? Abortion is never mentioned in the constitution.

        I absolutely welcome you making an argument based on the text of the constitution – including the 9th and 14th amendment

        And I would jump to agree with you – that the right of a person to control of their own body is a right that government has only very limited ability to infringe on.

        I would LOVE to get you to committ to reading the constitution as written – including the 9th and 14th amendments.
        I would love to see you argue that the history of abortion in the 18th and 19th centuries supports this constitutional interpretation.
        I would love to see you argue that a long common law history holding a persons right to control their own bodies supercedes positive duties to others.

        Because these arguments are ORIGINALIST – or more accurately they are or are supposed to be the NORM for reading law and constitution.

        I would be happy to agree with you that draft Dobbs by Alito is ANTI-ORIGINALIST.

        But there is a price to my agreement and support – and that is YOUR acceptance that this is ALWAYS the way the constitution must be read.

        With respect to your attempts to terrorize people over other protections.

        The broadest interpretation of this ruling would be that all these choices are returned to the people. That we can democratically decide whether there is a right to birth control, to same sex marriage, to interracial marriage, ….

        You are constantly telling me that we are a democracy – and government can do whatever the majority wants.

        If the majority of people in a state want to end same sex marriage or birth control – isn’t that the democracy you keep telling us that you want and that purportedly conservative judges threaten ?

        I actually agree with you that is not the case. That the majority can not force their views on marriage, sex, or birth control on the rest of us.

        Just as the majority can not force its views on Health insurance, masks, lockdowns, vaccines, my right to employ who I wish, to serve who I wish, …. on the rest of us by force.

        My right to not be forced by the federal government into health insurance I do not want is bigger than being able to have an abortion at 8 months.

        Regardless, Nutacha – do not make libertarian arguments about rights – UNLESS YOU MEAN THEM.

          1. You do not appear to be paying much attention.

            Thank you for a brief that after the pompous and arrogant parts about their credentials –
            Historical facts can be demonstrated by historical documents.

            says the very same things – at-least so far as I have read, as I have said here.

            Glad to know the AHA agree with me.

            Some times when someone can not get something the first 20 times – more repetition helps.

            Alito is correct – there is no constitutional right to abortion.
            He is incorrect – there is plenty in the constitution as well as 18th and 19th century history to support some protection for abortions through other actual rights.

            Though I would note that the quickening argument is poor – it is essentially an appeal to 18th century science.
            It is useful in explaining the position of our founders. It is not useful as actual science, nor as law.

            Neither the right, nor the left are right about either the constitution, nor our founders.

            And I have repeatedly criticised BOTH – but you are not paying attention.

            1. John B. Say,

              “ Though I would note that the quickening argument is poor – it is essentially an appeal to 18th century science.
              It is useful in explaining the position of our founders. It is not useful as actual science, nor as law.”

              Wouldn’t an originalist interpretation require that the quickening be used as a basis for determining viability? The whole point of the originalist philosophy is that the law be interpreted according to what the meanings and views were at the time. You wouldn’t be able to apply a modern view of abortion. No?

              1. No, but an originalist interpretation would note that some states had abortion laws, and some did not, and few had laws baring abortion before quickening.

                What that means is that:

                Our founders accepted that abortion could be banned, BUT that they rarely if ever did so before quickening which SUGGESTS they also accepted that early abortions could NOT be banned.

                I have said repeatedly that Alito is wrong – there is a constitutional right to control of your own body – and it can be found in originalist analysis.

                But there is not a right to KILL the pregnancy.

                Alito is wrong, AND Rowe is wrong.

                1. John, I can’t copy the decision from politico’s site. It discusses (pg. 32) “appeals to a broader right of to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much.” Alito then goes on to quote prior opinions and deals with them.

                  I always have difficulty distinguishing between your libertarian ideas and what the Constitution says in black and white. Perhaps you can enlighten me with what this statement of yours means.

                  “I have said repeatedly that Alito is wrong – there is a constitutional right to control of your own body – and it can be found in originalist analysis.
                  But there is not a right to KILL the pregnancy.
                  Alito is wrong, AND Rowe is wrong.”

                  Is Alito wrong based on his thinking as opposed to your own, or is he wrong because there is a fundamental error in what he says that is proven when quoting the words from the Constitution?

                  1. I am presuming that you are taking issue with the claim “Alito is wrong”.

                    Draft Aliton is based on a Borkean flawed originalism.

                    Statutory interpretation – including the constitution requires that all parts of a statute, all clauses, all words even must have meaning.

                    We do not draft laws with superfluous text. The constitution includes a “privildges and imunities” clause, it also includes the 9th amendment, and the 14th amendment includes another priviledges and imunities clause.

                    Borkean originalst OPENLY reject these – treating them as essentially superfluous flowery language.

                    Borkean originalism starts with the text of the constitution, rejects the parts they do not like and after that if something is not clearly unconstitutional – using only 2/3 of the constitution to measure against – what is left is then the domain of representative democracy.

                    Borkean originalism rejects both unenumerated rights AND constraint of the government to only enumerated powers.

                    They basically semi invert the 10th amendment – whatever power is not denied to the government is allowed, whatever right is not granted to the people is denied.

                    That turns the constitution on its head.

                    I am very surprised that Gorsuch joined Alito – I am less sure of the rest, but Gorsuch is very much a natural rights originalist.
                    Whatever power is not given the government is denied, whatever rights are not denied the people are given.

                    If you want a full throated originalist defense of the 9th amendment as well as constitutionally broad individual rights – read Randy Barnett’s
                    Restoring the lost constitution. Barnett is one of the leading modern originalist scholars and he is an absolute solid rejection of Alito’s Borkean democratic originalism.

                    That is the broad strokes – but it is the broad strokes that matter. It is specifically how the undefined areas are addressed that distinguishes Alito from any REAL originalism.

                    For an actual originalist when the constitution is not crystal clear – the default is indivudal rights and limited government.

                    For Alito the default is what is undefined is the domain of representative democracy.

                    And our founders LOATHED actual democracy. And that does not mean – merely greek direct democracy.
                    Our founders did not trust the people – even through representatives. to democratically decide what the rights of individuals were or what the powers of government are.

                    JS Mill came after the constitution – but “On Liberty” does an excellent job of arguing that the majority can not be trusted with individual rights. Monarchs and tyrants actually do better than democracy. Limited government is much MORE important when people govern themselves. People give less lattitude to the infringements of tyrants than to those of the majority.

                    1. “I am presuming that you are taking issue with the claim “Alito is wrong.”

                      No, John. I am saying there are various perspectives and, therefore, a variety of opinions, not facts. However, we have a Constitution written in black and white, so I am open to any perspective that can link to the actual words.

                      “Draft Aliton is based on a Borkean flawed originalism.

                      That is an opinion. I will guess that Bork would disagree with you.

                      “Borkean originalst OPENLY reject these – treating them as essentially superfluous flowery language.”

                      For your conclusion to become fact, you have to translate the exact words that are written and show why Bork’s translation of those words isn’t better than your own.

                      “Borkean originalism rejects…”

                      That is your opinion, not fact, so you have to treat it as your opinion. That leaves a soft underpinning in your conclusions.

                      “If you want a full throated originalist defense of the 9th amendment as well as constitutionally broad individual rights…”

                      I am not looking for that. I am looking for solid evidence that only your libertarian view can prevail based on the words in the Constitution. I don’t want to hear an opinion based on an upside-down pyramid based on one ideological viewpoint. I don’t even have an objection to much of what you say. I only object to treating your opinion as fact.

                      What statement of Alito makes him wrong BASED ON FACT?

          2. Johh B. Say,

            “ But there is a price to my agreement and support – and that is YOUR acceptance that this is ALWAYS the way the constitution must be read.”

            Why must it be read that way? Ironically there’s nothing in the constitution that tells anything how it must be interpreted.

            What gives conservatives the authority to unilaterally declare this is the only way to interpret the constitution?

            1. Why must it be read that way ?

              I am certain I have covered that in great detail in prior posts to YOU.

              Regardless, think about it a bit.

              BTW this means of interpreting statues IS in some state constitutions and has actually been the standard for law for centuries.

              The name originalism is new, the process is ancient.

            2. What give conservatves ….

              First this is not a conservative method.
              It is a centuries old method.

              Next the alternative is chaos.

              But if you think there is another means to read the constitution and statues that will consistently result in the same answers when applied by jurists regardless of politics, and will not merely produce that result today – but 50 years ago, and 50 years hence – please provide that method.

              If every judge in the country is free to find the law to mean whatever they want – we have lawlessness.

              So that you understand the goal is NOT to have judges find the ideologically correct answer.

              It is to find the plain meaning of the law, as expressed by those who drafted it. That is ONE meaning – not many.
              It could well be a bad meaning – not what we want today.

              If the law is read consistently – when it is wrong the legislature can change it.

              When it is not read consistently – we have chaos.

    2. This is not the role of the court. It is up to Congress to decide whether this is an appropriate subject for national legislation. If it passes something, and it is challenged as being beyond its authority, the court will again have its say. If Congress does not act, then the court may face rational basis challenges to state legislation and dormant commerce clause challenges to efforts to penalise recourse to abortion in other states where it is lawful. Until then, the court has no role to play. It has no right or authority, or expertise, to give its views on matters of political prudence.



    Lincoln received a letter of congratulation and commendation for the “…’RECONSTRUCTION’ of a social world…” from Karl Marx (why is it not displayed at the Lincoln Memorial?).

    Wilson’s progressives were progressing to communism.

    Roosevelt was a full blown communist.

    Joe McCarthy’s “Red Scare” and McCarthyism were absolutely correct revealing that America was infested with communism.

    Johnson imposed full communist redistribution of wealth and social engineering.

    Obama completed the Obama Coup D’etat in America, closed the communist deal and “fundamentally transformed” the United States of America into a communist gulag.

    And here we are.

    “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    You couldn’t.

    1. So Biden’s puppet masters, Obama American Hating Commie/Nazis, etc., gave away most all of the US’s Strategic Oil Reserves, & US Farmers & Ranchers are currently being run out Biz by the puppet masters DC/State bureaucracy.

      Today we see they are giving away US’s Emergency Strategic Food Stock.

      All those depending on all that Commie/Fascist US Gov Welfare program BS will likely be in for a life or death shock when they find out their Heroes have set them up to starve them to death or kill them with the next Bio/Chem weapon Jab.


  14. Warning: Judges should beware of angry protesters showing up at their homes.

    An NY lawyer dressed up as a Fedex employee targeted a Federal Judge in NJ.

    Judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son Daniel was shot multiple times and died at the scene, while her husband — criminal defense Attorney Mark Anderl — is in critical but stable condition at the hospital after undergoing surgery, North Brunswick, NJ Mayor Francis Womack said.

    A body later found at Campsite and Berry Brook roads in Rockland, New York, is believed to be the suspect. He is believed to be a lawyer, leading investigators to believe the judge’s husband was the intended target. “A brazen and cowardly act of gun violence at their home in North Brunswick,” Governor Phil Murphy said.

    “We give our full support to Judge Salas and her husband at this most trying time. This is an unconscionable tragedy.” Judge Salas, who is the first Latina to serve on the federal bench in New Jersey, was in the home at the time but was not hurt.

    1. Word on the street is target practice posters featuring a red cape and white bonnet are in demand, for target practice shooting. All perfectly legal for people to express their frustration, anxiety and fears and practice their second amendment freedoms to educate those in red capes and white bonnets

  15. The objective of protesting is in fact an act to influence another person

    1. It’s legal to try to influence public opinion.

      It’s legal to express your anger without an expectation of influencing the justices.

      1. The pictures, video, and audio all provided the evidence of intent. To protest the Judge’s ruling in abortion case, due soon.

        1. It’s legal to protest the ruling. The law is fairly narrow about what kind of intent is required for the protest to be illegal.

          If the DOJ has evidence that someone is breaking the law, then the DOJ should charge them. But **your word** about it is totally unreliable.

          1. It is legal to protest the ruling.

            The law cited does not ban speech.

            It bans speech at a Judges HOME.

            No the law is NOT narrow regarding intent.
            Any intent to direct the ruling meets the requirements of the law.

            You can argue this law is not constitutional, but the law is on the books and unlike the idiocy over J6 this law is clear and directly applies to this situation.

          2. If the DOJ was not actively engaged itself in tryijng to undermine the rule of law – that would be plausible.

            DOJ is too busy trying to arrest parents upset that their kids are being taught to be racists.

  16. Abortion Providers Have Been Harassed At Home For Decades

    Turley is back to leak outrage today, or lack of. We’re all supposed to be ‘troubled’ by the leak of Justice Alito’s sham of an opinion. Forget the millions of women who will lose their reproductive rights. Our focus needs to stay on the leak and how has cheapened the court.

    And we’re asking commenters not to mention Ginni Thomas and her far-right influence peddling. Those revelations didn’t ‘really’ cheapen the court. At least it didn’t in the minds of Fox News viewers who more than likely never heard that Ginni is actually a QAnon wacko. Even though most Fox viewers are QAnon wackos themselves.

    But the really disturbing development is that supporters of choice are protesting outside the homes of the 5 wackos on the court. This isn’t supposed to happen in a polite society. Sure, it’s okay to harass abortion providers at their homes. They’re just baby killers. But the 5 far-right wackos of the court are upstanding Federalists totally supported by the Koch network of GOP donors.

    So we’re asking everyone who respects the constitution to just leave this issue in the hands of state legislators. They’ll do the right thing and make sure baby-killing mothers and doctors are prosecuted appropriately.

  17. The news is reporting that Justice Alito has gone into hiding and is holed up at an undisclosed location. Apparently he’s afraid of a bunch of women chanting in the street in front of his house. So do you think Biden lent him the use of Camp David? Um, no! Could he be at Mar-a-Lago? Possibly…but not likely. Is the Governor of Mississippi toasting him at a former plantation? Wouldn’t surprise me….Or maybe he’s on the run with that fugitive and his prison guard lover from Alabama, lol.

    1. “The news is reporting that Justice Alito has gone into hiding and is holed up at an undisclosed location.”

      Is it? Or is it rumor mongering?

      Ilya Shapiro said he’d heard that, but he also said he was unsure whether it was true: “I don’t have any non-public sources.” “I forget whether I saw the rumor on Twitter or somebody told me. I don’t know.”

  18. Federal law makes it illegal to picket near a judge’s home because an honest legal system cannot be subject to physical intimidation.
    18 U.S.C. Sec.1507
    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.
    One synonym for protest is demonstration.
    Clearly this law as written includes all forms of protests in or near the homes of the Judges.
    Protesters should be arrested, just like those who trespassed onto the US Capitol grounds on January 6, 2020.

    1. Notice that the DOJ needs to prove intent for 18 U.S.C. 1507, which is not required in proving trespass.

      1. “Notice that the DOJ needs to prove intent for 18 U.S.C. 1507, which is not required in proving trespass.”
        What is the purpose of protesting ?
        It is an intention to influence the Judges – otherwise why would they be protesting ?

        1. Again, people protest for diverse reasons: to express frustration, to educate or influence the general public, …

          That you, personally, assume that intent is there doesn’t matter legally. The DOJ has to prove it in court with evidence, and it can’t rely on your personal opinion.

Leave a Reply