Ian Miller
Videos by OutKick
The recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has created quite a few storylines, ranging from celebrities and media personalities posting their unhinged reactions to inaccurate takes from sports figures and rampant hypocrisy displayed by politicians and athletes.
But of the many disturbing trends that have emerged since the decision was leaked, perhaps the most upsetting has been rotating protests at the homes of several Justices.
These disgraceful displays have specifically targeted the conservative leaning justices like Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney-Barrett. Both have had to endure activist mobs gathering in front of their private residences:
Of course, the most extreme incident concerning the leak and resulting decision was Brett Kavanaugh recently being targeted for assassination at his home.
Now the Supreme Court Marshal, the court’s top security officer, has sent letters to authorities in both Maryland and Virginia, asking for state police in both states to enforce existing laws prohibiting picketing outside homes:
This really shouldn’t be difficult.
If you want to protest against a government decision you disagree with, do it in a public place.
Targeting private homes is not acceptable, especially when there’s already been a clearly established threat of violence against the justices.
This is the logical escalation of the increasingly absurd rhetoric from activist progressives. Every ruling they disagree with is an “act of violence,” a “threat to American democracy” or means that the entire US system of government needs to be torn down and destroyed.
Even the White House famously refused to condemn protests at private homes.
When ideological leaders and politicians encourage these illegal actions, it’s unsurprising that the Supreme Court Marshal is asking for help enforcing existing laws and protecting the court.
You have to ASK them to enforce the law smfh
Exactly, but that’s the world Democrats want.
It’s amazing to me that you have laws on the books making it illegal to protest at a jury member or judges home so not to intimidate but Merrick Garland (and other la enforcement agencies) choose not to enforce these laws. Why have laws then if law enforcement agencies can simply not prosecute if they so choose?