Garland endangers the country by not protecting Supreme Court justices.

Why Attorney General Merrick Garland is Wrong About Home Protests

Understanding Body Language and Words

It doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the difference between a welcoming crowd and a hostile one. We all know the difference between a smile and a frown, between waving hands gesturing people to come forward versus hands signaling people to stay away. These differences are grounded in the natural way people understand body language and words as their meanings are settled in ordinary language.

However, Attorney General Merrick Garland and the young lawyers in the Department of Justice feeding him advice seem to have missed this basic understanding.

Responsibility for Unfriendly Crowds

When asked about the unfriendly crowds gathered every day around the homes of Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, the attorney general said the discretion to deal with the crowds rested with the Marshals’ Service, on the scene to protect the judges. However, this account of Garland’s was a transparent evasion, according to Michael Mukasey, the distinguished judge who became attorney general under George W. Bush. The Marshals’ Service is under the governance of the attorney general, and the responsibility for any willingness to leave conservative justices with hostile groups planted outside their doors rests with Garland.

Verbal Assaults and Threats

Verbal assaults have always been taken seriously as real assaults. Threatening or terrorizing phone calls, campaigns of denigration against racial and religious groups, or defamation that destroys a person’s reputation and business are all examples of verbal assaults. Yet, Judge Kyle Duncan was subjected to derision and contempt while visiting Stanford Law School, and writer Mary Eberstadt was called a “vicious transphobe” and “homophobe” during her visit to Furman University. The administrators of both places claimed that this behavior was compatible with preserving a climate of tolerance and respect for freedom of speech on the campus.

Mob Protests Undo the Rule of Law

Even a strongly liberal Supreme Court in 1965 was utterly adamant that there could be no tenable freedom to hold a demonstration outside a courthouse. That kind of display had the danger of fostering the impression that a verdict inside that courthouse might be affected by the massing of people in the street. Even progressive judges agree that the homes of men, sometimes the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick, can be protected by government from noisy, marching, tramping, threatening picketers and demonstrators bent on filling the minds of men, women, and children with fears of the unknown.

No Equality Before the Law for Democrats’ Enemies

The lawyers of the Democratic Party are withdrawing the protections of the law from conservatives as a not-so-gentle way of marking them unfit for company and their jurisprudence odious. And Americans are regarded as hyperbolic when they venture the thought that we may be in the first, lawfare stage of a civil war.

It’s time for Attorney General Merrick Garland and the young lawyers in the Department of Justice to understand the basic principles of law and protect the integrity of the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.