DOJ Prosecutes Jan 6. It Encourages intimidation of SCOTUS Judges

OPINION:

On the anniversary of Jan. 6, riot at U.S. Capitol Building, you might wonder if Attorney General Merrick Grland will listen to his words. “address the rising violence and criminal threats of violence” Judges. His Department of Justice must end the intimidation of public officials to influence their discharge of official duties.

Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Garland’s DOJ has unleashed the fury of federal prosecution against nearly a thousand Jan. 6 defendants, sparing no effort in tracking down, prosecuting and punishing those involved.

Despite all this, he refuses to listen to threats of violence and intimidation made at the residences of Supreme Court justices in Dobbs v. Jackson. The May 2022 leaked draft majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson which returned abortion policy to each state’s voters by overturning Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Garland has warned against intimidation of public officials.

“While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,” He once said.

“There is no place for partisanship in the enforcement of the law. This Justice Department will not tolerate any such abuse of authority,” He also promised.

Since almost a year, vicious threats against each of the Republican presidents’ justices have been constant.

The terrorizing tactics of supporters for abortion access against justices and their families was covered by the mainstream media at one point. A violent leftist attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home, but failed.

Nicholas Roske was charged with attempted murder of Supreme Court justice. Roske claimed to police that he was angry about the leaked draft of Dobbs’ majority opinion and had written online messages in support. “I’m gonna stop Roe v Wade from being overturned” You can act to “Remove some people from the Supreme Court.” He said: “I could get a least one, which would change the votes for decades to come, and I am shooting for 3.”

Mr. Garland does not draw a line at attempted assassination. Federal law, however, is much more protective of federal judges’ homes. “Protests at a person’s home carry with them the implicit threat of violence and can be designed to stoke fear for their personal and their families’ safety,” Sen. Lindsey Graham protested Mr. Garland in a letter.

In particular, federal law prohibits demonstrations or picketing outside federal judges’ homes that are intended to influence a judge in the exercise of the judge’s duty. The statute was cited by Mr. Graham to the attorney general.

Mr. Garland understands the law. He lacks the drive to enforce it fairly. He is refusing to prosecute illegal intimidation against Supreme Court justices with as much vigor as the DOJ applied to Jan. 6 defendants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a new year-end report on federal judiciary, warns that judges should not be omitted. “cannot and should not live in fear” And that “we must support judges by ensuring their safety.” The report does not mention the attacks on the homes of Supreme Court justices, and it omits to discuss the 2022 assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh.

The report does, however, describe the 2020 murder of 20-year-old Danny Anderl, who answered the door to his home and took an assassin’s bullet intended for his mother, federal Judge Esther Salas of New Jersey.

If the attorney general doesn’t enforce the law against criminals who try to intimidate or threaten judges in their own homes, it is unlikely that judges across the country feel secure.

Although Mr. Garland is enthusiastically leading over 900 prosecutions of Jan. 6 offenses, “in defense of our democratic institutions,” The White House encourages intimidation and threats at the homes of Supreme Court justices.

Jen Psaki, the then-White House press secretary, unabashedly answered questions about illegal protests: “We certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.”

Ms. Psaki dismissed the illegality of her conduct and argued, “Just because people are passionate, it does not mean they’re violent.” 

Of course, that completely ignores the aforementioned federal law — in other words, the kind of behavior of the organized groups that continue to target the homes of the Supreme Court justices.

It overlooks the fact many of the 900 federal criminal prosecutions that began Jan. 6 involved nonviolent behavior.

The chief justice’s year-end report underscores the “importance of rule by law instead of by mob.” While Mr. Garland enthusiastically applied this sentiment to the Jan. 6 Riot participants, he ignores ongoing criminal activity outside the homes and offices of Supreme Court justices.

• Gayle Trotter is an attorney and political analyst based in Washington. Follow Gayle Trotter on Twitter at @gayletrotter