Site icon JONATHAN TURLEY

Insurrection or Advocacy? Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Issues “Call to Arms” After Leaked Abortion Ruling

jonathanturley

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) facing criticism over a tweet in which she issued a “call to arms” after the recent leaking of the abortion decision from the Supreme Court. In the aftermath of the firebombing of a pro-life office and the doxing of Supreme Court justices, the “call to arms” was alarming for many, particularly given the violent protests in Chicago in prior years. I do not believe that Lightfoot is encouraging anything other than peaceful advocacy. Yet, it is striking how virtually identical language has been used by Democrats to seek the disqualification of GOP members and criminal charges against figures like Donald Trump. Indeed, such rhetoric featured greatly in the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Ligthfoot declared “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

 

Democrats have been criticized for the use of inflammatory rhetoric in the past. One of the most notable and shocking incidents was 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.”

During the Trump impeachment, managers replayed the comments of  Trump from prior years to show how his words fueled divisions, critics were pointing to similar statements from the managers themselves. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the leading impeachment manager, was chided for using “fight like hell” in a 2019 interview with The Atlantic — the very words replayed repeatedly from Trump. He also used that phrase repeatedly in prior years to ramp up his supporters in fighting for Democratic control of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi blundered by appointing managers like Eric Swalwell, who is notorious for his inflammatory rhetoric. Swalwell’s comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared “Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.”

Managers focused on Trump statements that parallel those of Lightfoot. Trump urge his supporters to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He also told them: “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

Yet, Trump also told his supporters that “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” He said the reason for the march was that “we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” As for those opposing any electoral vote challenge, Trump said “we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”

The fact is that I would oppose impeachment or charges for either Lightfoot or Trump for such rhetoric.

The Supreme Court has long rejected fluid standards in criminalizing speech. Indeed, a case based on this speech likely would fail in federal court. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court refused to allow the criminalization of speech that actually calls for “the use of force or of law violation” unless it is imminent.

During the Trump impeachment, I warned about the slippery slope created by the articles given similar language used by Democrats in both houses to “fight” for the country and to “retake” Congress. During Trump’s 2017 inauguration, Democrats denounced his legitimacy as riots broke out in Washington involving violent groups.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) later called on people to confront Republicans in public; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) insisted during 2020’s violent protests that “there needs to be unrest in the streets.” Then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said “protesters should not let up” even as many protests turned violent or deadly.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has condemned fellow members as effectively traitors and the “enemy within.” She was criticized last year for stating, in the midst of violent protests, that “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.”

Even Fired FBI director James Comey has been given to reckless rhetoric, too. He recently said: “The Republican Party needs to be burned down … It’s just not a healthy political organization.” Likewise, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” Since the Republican National Committee was targeted with a pipe bomb on Jan. 6, would that constitute incitement to arson or violence? Not under Brandenburg.

The Lightfoot comments only highlight the double standard applied by Democrats over free speech. Whether it is “disinformation” or violent speech, the Democrats have often excluded themselves from such standards. What is insurrectionary language for some is advocacy language for others. The alternative is to “fight like hell” for free speech . . . for everyone.

 

Exit mobile version