“…the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.”
Without a doubt, the mainstream media are in full-blown Democrat apologist mode, and at an elevated level we typically see when Democrats and their affiliated special interest groups get caught behaving very badly.
“Behaving very badly,” as it turns out, would be putting it mildly. We’ve seen the invasion of Catholic churches and the violence at some pro-abortion “protests” in the aftermath of last week’s blockbuster report from Politico about the draft majority opinion from the Supreme Court in which Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”
In addition to the church harassment and violence, we’ve also seen fanatical pro-abortion Democrats like a “visibly shaken” Sen. Elizabeth Warren spew angry rhetoric, the type we’ve been told for some 16 months now was undeniable evidence that the person using the language deliberately meant to incite an insurrection.
Further, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer started laying the groundwork for a possible attempt at impeaching some of the conservative Justices for “perjury,” a ridiculous accusation George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley soundly debunked.
Most disturbingly, however, have been the Biden White House-endorsed demonstrations outside of the homes of some of the conservative Justices, which started after they were doxxed with portions of their addresses complete with maps posted online by the militant abortion group “Ruth Sent Us.”
The targeting of the Justices’ homes and the criticism the far left has received over this dangerous tactic has had the media springing into action in recent days in apparent attempts at portraying the “activists” in the most flattering and sympathetic of lights.
Much of it, unsurprisingly, has come from The Washington Post, which on Saturday published a glowing puff piece on Lacie Wooten-Holway, a pro-abortion neighbor/protester of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They presented her as a righteous woman and sexual assault survivor who had two abortions in her younger years due to “unplanned pregnancies.” Lovingly included in the piece was a photo of a smiling Wooten-Holway wearing a shirt that read “Abortion is Healthcare” while her 7-year-old son sat with her on her porch and helped her with a “poster about reproductive rights.”
In another piece, The Washington Post‘s Aaron Blake aimed a rumor reported by conservative media outlet Breitbart on how Justice Alito and his family had reportedly had to be moved to an undisclosed location due to threats they had allegedly received. WaPo, which initially declared the rumor “baseless,” eagerly sought to discredit the story because the idea that a Justice was in the level of danger it would require to shuttle him and his loved ones to an undisclosed location would not convey pro-abortion protesters as the “compassionate liberals” the MSM wants people to think they are.
As it turned out, the rumor was true, confirmed by Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich Wednesday. Mysteriously, the word “baseless” no longer appears in the Washington Post’s headline.
The latest attempt by the WaPo at covering for the protesters who have descended upon the homes of the Justices also came from Blake, who consulted “legal experts” in what no doubt was an effort to shut down talk of how what the protesters were doing was illegal under U.S. Code.
U.S. Code, I should note, is not ambiguous when it comes to these things. Title 18, Section 1507 reads as follows:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
Though there is not really any room for an alternate interpretation of how the Code reads, Blake nevertheless tried to find it anyway by consulting with several law experts who explained to him in so many words what the protesters were doing in front of the Justices’ homes was, in fact, illegal.
Blake’s response was to put the “probably” qualifier on it, perhaps hoping against hope that another expert would contact him to say the Code could be interpreted differently:
But while protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.
The headline on the piece as it stands now also includes a qualifier:
Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes appear to be illegal https://t.co/xN87Vj2tCL
— Post Politics (@postpolitics) May 11, 2022
“Appear to be illegal.” These people are nothing if not predictable, aren’t they?
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.