Twenty-five state attorneys general, including Alaska’s Attorney General Treg Taylor, are calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce a federal law that prohibits people from targeting judges’ and justices’ homes in an attempt to intimidate them.
In a letter sent to Garland last week, the attorneys general pointed out that federal law prohibits picketers and protestors from targeting judges’ homes, “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.”
“We the undersigned Attorneys General act daily to uphold the rule of law,” the state attorneys wrote to Garland. “These remarkable recent events provide you an opportunity to do the same.”
The letter was signed by attorneys general from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
After a Supreme Court draft opinion was leaked earlier this month showed that the majority of Supreme Court justices have voted to overturn Roe v Wade, abortion rights activists published addresses of those justices’ homes. For several days, organized protests have taken place outside of them, and threats of violence have been made against them.
Over 100 protestors marched and chanted in front of Justice Samuel Alito’s home last week; he is the justice whose draft opinion was leaked to the media by an unknown person working for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The letter to Garland says the U.S. Attorney General is obligated to uphold the law, and they point to threats of violence and actual violence perpetrated by abortion activists over the past week that have gone without punishment, even while Garland has ordered the Department of Justice to surveil parents who have protest school board policies relating to Covid and transgender students.
“You were quick to respond to the purported ‘threat’ of parents speaking out at local school board meetings (though the basis for your threat assessment was shaky to say the least). Here, in the face of escalating extremism directed at the judicial branch, you have an obvious role to play,” the attorneys general wrote.
“Congress recognized that pressuring judges to change their votes by protesting outside their homes directly threatens the rule of law,” the letter continued “You profess to share those concerns, having unequivocally stated that attacking a courthouse ‘to prevent judges from actually deciding cases’ plainly constitutes ‘domestic extremism, domestic terrorism.’”
Sad what we’ve come to.
How long before someone takes a shot at a justice or one of their clerks?
After all, if you (stupidly) thought the fate of western civilization rested on abortion without limits, wouldn’t you almost be obligated to stop this with any and all means possible?
This is how civilizations fall. And the left is determined to bring ours down.
Seems misplaced for the Right to to seek to protect members of SCOTUS from intimidation and threats of violence when they did exactly that on January 6. Remember “Hang Mike Pence”?
Bump your head?
This is both nonsensical and incorrect. Plus irrational.
But do go on.
It’s not just the protestors, but the swamp folks in DC who advocate and encourage this. This is against the law and laws should be enforced, although not with this administration. We should also be enforcing the laws on our southern border.
Where is Lisa when everything is falling apart but she did have her world rocked by the Supreme Court
Jody
To a lawless attorney General like Merrick Garland those odds are good he will do nothing with only half the States Attorney Generals asking him to enforce a law..!!!..
We need a MAJOR change at the politicians’ level. Look where we are at from the 50s or 60s. What is better now from then? This is what bad government looks like. It is a free for all out of control press against the way we were. Vote smart. don’t trust the current group of mobsters.
I don’t know Mark, what is better now than the 1950s or 1960s… maybe: domestic violence is now prosecuted; churches can no longer molest children without consequences; native children aren’t forced to boarding schools; gay people have some of the rights of the heterosexual population; black people have civil rights; etc…
Garland doesn’t have time to prosecute real criminals and those who wish to assault Supreme Court justices. He’s too busy prosecuting January 6th protestors of the fraudulent election and still looking for the ghosts of Russian collusion. Unfortunately, he’s just another ugly, insane Democrat, circling our illegitimate, demented president.
Paul Geivette, just think what if, Merrick Garland had made it to the Supreme Court after Obama appointed him, suppose for a minute that a bunch of right wing nuts went to his house to protest. Hmm… wanna bet what would happen to the protestors if one of the leftist judges had this happen to them? I bet it would make Garland’s School Board shakedown look tame.
Folks have to realize that this Government isn’t following the rules.
I was going to say the same. He’s too busy threatening soccer moms who stand up for their children. If these were conservative protesters, they’d be locked up, put on no fly lists, bank accounts cancelled, and more.
You thinking intimidate and assault are the same thing?
Yankee, you probably made it through high school, but beyond that you are probably very good at feeding your dog. Don’t bother with law school. You wouldn’t get past the LSAT.
Pretty funny Lakreesha as I have an advanced degree in Mathematics but do well feeding my dog, as well. What made you think I made it through high school as likely you didn’t. Heheh!
Even for you that’s a pathetic take.
Hehe.
I would not put a lot of stock in our AG Treg or this governor if the truth were exposed
Don’t worry because now you can’t get fired for your hairstyles.
“Enforce the law”, LOL!
.
Don’t you know that enforcing the law is RACIST??!!
If I were in that protest I would also be putting a mask on in order to mask my shame of marching in support of the death culture.
So I guess intimidation is only OK if you’re trying to do it to the US Congress in order to overturn an election.
If he refuses to enforce the law he needs to be impeached.
The state of Virginia has a similar law. Youngkin could respond, yet he chooses not to.
Youngkin ordered state troopers to create a safe zone around Justices homes.
While they’re at it, please ask him to enforce our immigration laws, our election laws, the Fifth Amendment to our constitution, etc. etc. etc. He did, after all take an oath to do just that. However, what good is an oath without the moral character and faith in God to enforce it?
Comments are closed.