Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

WaPo Begrudgingly Admits ‘Protests’ Outside Justices’ Homes ‘Appear To Be Illegal’

WaPo Begrudgingly Admits ‘Protests’ Outside Justices’ Homes ‘Appear To Be Illegal’

“…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:

“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.

Comments

Rupert Smedley Hepplewhite | May 13, 2022 at 7:21 am

“Ruth sent us” doyennes have no idea Ruth ascribed to Alito’s opinion. Obviously, they never let that stop them from showing their collective ignorance.

Water appears to be wet.
SMH… anyone with four brain cells and an internet connection could look up the law…. and see clearly that the DOJ is turning a blind eye, again.
Thanks Stacey.

2smartforlibs | May 13, 2022 at 7:39 am

If you’re going to report on something you might want to know what you’re talking about first. TITLE 18USC1507 for example.

What difference would it make? Laws broken by liberals don’t matter. The illegal protesters won’t be arrested, charged, tried, found guilty, imprisoned, nor even put on probation. The rule of law is now only a tool to harass and defeat conservatives. Bye bye America

The surest way to test the legality would be for a bunch of conservative protesters to show up in front of Sotomayor’s or Kagan’s house.

It would be Insurrection 2.o, instigated by the MAGA King himself!!

E Howard Hunt | May 13, 2022 at 7:59 am

Yes, but the protesters are not illegal. They are undocumented threateners.

Treat them like they have the J6 insurrectionist.

“Appear to be”. Always hedging are these Democrat mouth pieces. Pravda on the Potomac chief among them.

Since the DC area has more attorneys per capita than anywhere else in the US, I have no doubt more than a few “protesters” are attorneys (and maybe government attorneys). Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 says “It is professional misconduct to… engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Any attorney protesting in front of a Justice’s home should be disbarred.

Steven Brizel | May 13, 2022 at 9:09 am

what is happening outside of the Justices’ homes is clearly a violation of 18 USC1507. TheDOJ is too busy investigating parents who are questioning the propriety of teaching CRT and gender fludity

No one expects useful idiots to be anything other run of the mill idiots.

“WaPo Grudgingly Admits Protests May be Illegal”

How about Dept of Justice? How about the US Government?

Only a newspaper? That’s it?

    henrybowman in reply to Peabody. | May 13, 2022 at 6:54 pm

    But wait!

    Who’s keeping dates?

    Is it possible we’ve set a new record for the “re-bunking” of a conservative talking point?

    I’m speaking of a major news organization, natch. The current record for Twidiots, of the sort who chortle that Kyle killed three black people, or that the Waukesha parade killer was a white nationalist, are practically measured in CPU cycles.

filiusdextris | May 13, 2022 at 10:06 am

I would say the presence of the protestors is not a violation of the law cited, at least without more. The law requires an “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing…” If they make a claim that they were just showing their anger at (what may be tantamount in their minds to) the decision to overturn Roe, and if that mentality is not illegal, then it would be hard to disprove on a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt basis that they instead had an illegal mentality. Still sickening behavior, abortion even more so.

    CommoChief in reply to filiusdextris. | May 13, 2022 at 11:14 am

    So an ‘angry mob’ (your description) showing up in a residential neighborhood isn’t intimidating? For perspective lets keep in mind the impact on family members, some of whom are minors. ‘Mom, Dad, I’m scared’ would seem to be something that would potentially influence a Judge, Juror or witness.

    Let’s even grant your argument and propose they make the claim that they had no intent to influence. Ok, first is an arrest, fingerprint, booking, photos, criminal records check. Then an arraignment, then back and forth motions another hearing or two; evidentiary, discovery.

    Perhaps a social media post of the defendant will indicate a desire to harm members of the CT, perhaps a desire to ‘burn it all down’. The ‘it’ being referenced is a question for the jury to decide as is the validity or seriousness of threats; questions of fact.

    The hypothetical defendants are certainly free to raise the claims that they lacked intent at trial, but the trial is down the road a fair piece from an arrest. That initial act and criminal record search might discover outstanding warrants or a history of aggressive to violent acts during ‘protests’. At a minimum the prospect of a night in the can and a record search will damper the enthusiasm of the lawless to participate.

      Protests at private homes cuases me to wonder about the right of homeowners to ingress/egress their property. Can the justices safely enter/exit their homes whether by foot or in a motor vehicle, via public roadways? And if crowds block their access isn’t that intimidation – i.e., preventing freedom of movement and access to services, etc.? If the homeowner wants to go out but the presence of a mob discourages them from doing so, isn’t that intimidation?

      IANAL, but still I wonder if sometimes if in discussion and application of our “rights” if they aren’t haphazardly eroded by applying them to places and not our person? Or vice versa? I.e., do our rights travel with us? In particular the right to egress/ingress – is it a private property right, or a personal right? If I’m driving on a public road and some twit jumps in front of me with a sign, does the twit have the right to stop/delay my movement?

        CommoChief in reply to MrE. | May 13, 2022 at 4:13 pm

        Rights apply to the individual regardless of location but the scope of the rights can be lessened based on the location. Your reasonable expectation of the general right to privacy is highest when you are within your home. That expectation is less depending upon location. The backyard isn’t the same as your bedroom. Your front yard, abutting a public street is different than the backyard.

        In your example of a person jumping in front of your vehicle, what type of road? Interstate Hwy v residential street? One has a speed limit of 75 the other 15. Noon or dead of night? A driver would be expected to be alert to the possibility of children or pedestrian traffic on a residential street but not on an interstate Hwy.

        Location is important. As an example, I have a right to ‘peaceably assemble’ and protest against nukes but I wouldn’t be allowed in a minute man missile silo. That lack of access to a particular location doesn’t diminish my right to protest elsewhere. It does restrict that particular location based on reasonable and narrow countervailing interests.

          Funny comment about the MM silo. When I was a boy, the MM project took my dad to wing IV at Whiteman AFB – we spent the summer living in a company trailer park SE of Sedalia, MO. In my 20’s I went to work for the same company as dad, and worked on the MM program for a few years and the short-lived Peacekeeper / MX missle program. Funny thing – never once did I set food on a base, silo or LCF. Just a program management office in San Bernardino for a brief meeting with the AF PMO guys. Tween us, I wish more radicals would try to protest at a nuke site. Security would make short work of them.

      lichau in reply to CommoChief. | May 13, 2022 at 2:17 pm

      This gets the “no reasonable prosecutor” get out of jail free card.

    Antifundamentalist in reply to filiusdextris. | May 13, 2022 at 3:53 pm

    Go listen to what those protesters are saying and then tell me that they are not violating the law.

    henrybowman in reply to filiusdextris. | May 13, 2022 at 6:55 pm

    ” If they make a claim that they were just showing their anger”

    “We just set the cross on fire because it was getting too dark to read our Bibles.”

50 shades of KKK… Some, Select Black Lives Matter invading neighborhoods to intimidate families and residents.

The pro-abortion special and peculiar interests are both well funded and resourced, producing a steady steam of pro-abortion commercials and protests almost since conception… leak.

Slightly off topic: The “leaker” is either a dissenting “Justice” or a staff member of same. Reason: if it was a concurring Justice or staff member, they would already be in solitary someplace. As the Jan 6 trespassers.

Outside chance it is actually a Justice and Roberts is burying it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode