Image 01 Image 03

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Children and Church Latest Target Of Radical “RuthSentUs” Group

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Children and Church Latest Target Of Radical “RuthSentUs” Group

Publicized where Barrett’s children attend school and where the family attends church, as part of protest call.

public domain

The attempt to assassinate United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was horrifying but not at all shocking. Democrats, their activist media cheerleaders, and their Big Tech “partners” have been advocating for illegal protests outside high court judges’ homes since the Roe draft opinion leak.

The White House backed, before having to walk it back, this violation of federal law.

Indeed, the White House and Democrats, with a couple of exceptions, have yet to comment on—much less condemn—the attempted assassination or the ongoing illegal protests outside Kavanaugh’s home.

And it’s not only Justice Kavanaugh under threat by the extreme pro-abortion left.

Because they know they are protected from legal consequences, the radical left is openly, and without a peep from Twitter, advocating for continued and more threatening intimidation of Justice Barrett.  Ruth Sent Us goes so far as to publicize where Barrett’s children attend school and where the family attends church. (archive)

What possible reason could there be for doing this except to hope that radical mobs descend on this school and this church?  And what possible reason could there be for that other than to coerce, terrorize, and intimidate a justice of the highest court in the land regarding her expected decision on a case before that court?

Where is Merrick Parents Are Domestic Terrorists Garland on this? Right. No where. Parents waiting their turn and then speaking out against public school policy at public-are-welcome school board meetings are the real threat, not these actual lawbreakers whose violations are actually under his jurisdiction.

Here’s the thing, you can bet your last dollar that if the pro-life right were doing the same thing to leftist and left-leaning SCOTUS justices over their opposition to overturning Roe, the full power and fury of the law and federal government would drop on them like Thor’s hammer.

They’d rot in jail, every Republican politician from their town dog-catcher to their House rep and senator would be blamed.  There would be shrieks of threats to democracy, insurrection, and racism/sexism/insert whatever ism.  There would be bills voted on and passed with lightning speed to abridge the Constitutional rights of anti-infanticide proponents, the FBI would be sent out to look for still-boxed Lego sets, and the entire sprawling DHS would fan out sniffing under every rock looking for anyone who doesn’t support abortion until the moment of birth.

But it’s the radical left breaking federal law and endangering the lives of SCOTUS justices, their children, and their church members, so it’s just some people doing some things because they are “passionate” about a just cause.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Look at that evil white supremacist!

As usual, the progs are suffering from a complete and utter lack of self-awareness. Wasn’t RBG vocal about the fact that she viewed Roe as a flawed decision?

    Dimsdale in reply to Paul. | June 10, 2022 at 5:08 pm

    It is the abortion supremacists we have to worry about.

    Just like your car in a college parking lot, isn’t it funny that only the identifiable conservatives, be they judges or bumper stickers, have to worry about violence, graffiti, and mischief.

    I can’t recall a “white supremacist” or “Q Anon” member ever threatening a supreme court justice. Or a car, for that matter.

Juris Doctor | June 10, 2022 at 3:14 pm

As Jonathan Turley correctly points out, the picketing and parading statute (18 USC 1507) is unconstitutional as most media pundits call for it to be be applied.

The statute requires an intent to disrupt an official proceeding and the US Attorney would have to prove there is no ordinary protest intent involved.

    I think you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. The statute is clear in that it includes “with the intent of influencing any judge . . . “. What do you think these radical leftists are trying to do if not intimidate the justices into bending to their will?

      daniel_ream in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | June 10, 2022 at 6:33 pm

      You really have to be careful about screeching “Do tHe ReSeArCh!” on a legal blog.

      The relevant clause is “with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty”. The question of whether a judge residing quietly at his home is in the process of “discharging his duty” is not, I think, unambiguous.

      Regardless, it’s pretty clear that the statute is simply prima facie unconstitutional. The American people have a right to peaceably assemble and petition their government for the redress of grievances. Doing that on a public street outside a judge’s home has to be constitutional, or else it’s not constitutional to do it on a public street outside the governor’s mansion or the White House.

      Yes, it’s being abused. Of course it is. Alinsky #4, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”.

        Wow, you got that weird cap-lock thing (“Do tHe ReSeArCh!”) from my comment? What is wrong with you?

        And your own equivocation and sudden “Regardless” shift once you recognized the hole you were digging . . . prove my point. Thank you.

        CommoChief in reply to daniel_ream. | June 10, 2022 at 7:44 pm


        A CT, particularly the SCOTUS, unlike a legislative body or an executive, doesn’t have the ability to provide any redress of grievances except for the cases in front of it. There isn’t any redress that can arise from this petition. The only possible outcome would be to influence the Justice to change their mind prior to its release; that’s an unlawful attempt to influence the outcome.

        Peaceable assembly is also characterized as lawful. Marching or standing in a roadway isn’t normally lawful except via a permit for a parade. Those permits are not generally issued for residential areas for obvious reasons. I am unaware of any parade permit being sought or issued.

        Finally lets run the protesters into the station for a booking for these violations and see what turns upon fingerprint and record check; warrants, prior conviction for menacing? Lets find out. Perhaps a search of their social media might turn up violent rhetoric or declarations to burn it all down. Does the ‘it’ mean a Justice’s home and family? Won’t know until we ask. Lets ask.

        henrybowman in reply to daniel_ream. | June 10, 2022 at 8:02 pm

        “The relevant clause is “with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty”. The question of whether a judge residing quietly at his home is in the process of “discharging his duty” is not, I think, unambiguous.”


        It says “in,” not “during.”

        You kidnap a justice’s kid from his school, your intent is to influence the justice’s performance of his duty, regardless of the fact that the justice was in a bubble bath at the time you snatched him.

        Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | June 10, 2022 at 8:14 pm

        Daniel, it doesn’t matter whether the judge is discharging his duty while sitting at home. The statute bans any attempt to influence a judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, no matter where or when that duty is to be discharged. There is no requirement that the target be engaged in his duty at the moment or location of the attempt to influence. If you see a juror on the street after court hours, and you strike up a conversation to try to influence how she votes tomorrow or next week or whenever the case will be given to the jury, you are violating the statute. And the same goes for a witness, a court officer, or a judge, for the same reason. Even trying to influence a judge about a case that won’t come up till next year violates the statute.

        As for whether the statute’s constitutional, it’s not obvious to me that it isn’t. Attempts to influence jurors or witnesses are surely not protected speech, so why would judges be different? In this they’re very unlike politicians or bureaucrats.

        But that all applies only if the purpose of the demonstration is indeed to influence the justices. If it’s merely to express the protesters’ objection, and to draw publicity to the cause, without any hope of actually changing the justices’ minds, then the protest is clearly protected by the first amendment, and no statute can ban it.

        Danny in reply to daniel_ream. | June 11, 2022 at 12:07 pm

        I have never read anything stupider than what you have just written.

        The statute is to prevent any attempt to influence a judge on any ongoing case of which these protests are explicit.

        1. I absolutely promise you ask any lawyer I don’t care which one if you are allowed to discuss on ongoing case with a judge at his house to try and influence his decision in a case you will get exactly the same answer, it doesn’t matter who you ask. Not only are you not allowed to intimidate a judge concerning an ongoing case it is one of the few things there is no split in American legal thought over.

        2. You seriously have no brain whatsoever if you think force of arms or force of mob being banned from influencing an ongoing case is unconstitutional. If the founders had intended on you intimidating judges as protected speech they wouldn’t have created a judiciary at all. Our judiciary is a continuation of England’s just try and intimidate an English judge they will throw you in prison for a couple decades. Mob rule over judiciary and force of arms is absolutely something rejected by our system (and the English system ours is a continuation of).

        3. You are being condescending for its own sake and contrary to try to troll right now. I absolutely do not think you believe a thing you wrote not for a second. You know there is no unconstitutionality to refusing to permit outside influence on a judge, and you know the statute includes protests, and you know it is constitutional.

        4. Try reading what the REAL limits of the 1st amendment are to avoid coming across as a condescending fool next time.

        kyrrat in reply to daniel_ream. | June 11, 2022 at 12:51 pm

        Just as an FYI Daniel_ream. Fuzzy works for said legal blog. She doesn’t spout off uniformed opinions. Her not being a lawyer does not mean she does not have extensive access to informed legal opinions from the lawyers who run the blog.

        Intent to influence a judge in the discharge of judicial duty does not depend on whether the judge is adjudicating cases in court or “quietly residing at home” when an act or acts are performed that manifest the intent. The street demonstration in this case doesn’t have to be unconstitutional to be illegal and it is always illegal to intimidate or threaten judges to achieve a particular judgment.

    Ironclaw in reply to Juris Doctor. | June 10, 2022 at 5:11 pm

    Wrong. The intent is obviously that they want to intimidate a supreme court justice to influence her decision, which is illegal under the very statue you named and that was part of the intent of that statute as written.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Juris Doctor. | June 10, 2022 at 6:27 pm

    18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading 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.

    You good sir, are an ass. Read the damn statute as written and quit cherrypicking the parts you think support your position.


    18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading

Is there a GoFundMe or something where we can contribute to get the Conservatives on the court private security? (Armed, of course)

It seems to be coming to that. If we don’t protect them ourselves, their risk will only increase.

    If there were it would be shut down, the monies seized and forwarded to Ruth Sent Us.

    NavyMustang in reply to irv. | June 10, 2022 at 3:31 pm

    From the videos I’ve seen of what I take to be Justice Kavanaugh’s house, the justices do have security. There is a clip showing protestors parading in front of a house and that house is surrounded by U.S. Marshals..

    Here’s a CNBC story on the security which has been in place since May.

      Yes, justices have security, and therefore their places of residence can have the U.S. Marshals guarding them. However, their family members are not eligible, so the spouses and children are on their own when they’re at work, school, going to the store, etc. The bill that passed the Senate unanimously last month and is being held up by the House Dems would change that and and allow security protection for family members of justices and certain court officials if it’s deemed necessary.

      What makes the holdup even more egregious is that the House Dems are well aware that family members of members of Congress and certain legislative branch officials are eligible for security protection if it’s deemed necessary, and it’s the same for certain people in the executive branch.

    TheOldZombie in reply to irv. | June 10, 2022 at 10:02 pm

    They have security. What they don’t have is an executive branch officer, the Attorney General of the United States, who is executing the law by directing that security to arrest and the DOJ to prosecute those who are breaking it.

Ruth would be turning over in her grave if she knew they were using her name to threaten and harass supreme court justices.

And the Ass brayed on… Keep women appointed, available, and taxable.

There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood is neither a good nor exclusive choice. The Pro-Choice “ethical” religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable commodity. The Twilight faith (e.g. Twilight amendment or “emanations from penumbras”) has been a source of past, present, and progressive mischief exercise with ever liberal license.

Thank goodness the DOJ and FBI thugs are there to protect the “Ruth Sent Us” folks from any harm, counter-protest, or improper pronoun usage.

    henrybowman in reply to Q. | June 10, 2022 at 8:07 pm

    I’m looking forward to the action when “Ruth Sent Us” meets up with “Charlton Sent Us.”

It appears that we’ve arrived at the final days of our Republic.

Steven Brizel | June 10, 2022 at 4:32 pm

The picketing at any judge’s house is illegal and it has already lead to one arrest of a would be murderer. The silence of the Democrats and the rationalizations of the media is disgraceful

Ruth may have an epiphany about sex, conception, and dignity, and agency in a late trimester, and rather than allow Barack “burden” Obama bray in an em-pathetic appeal to feminists and masculinists, turned against the wicked solution… the final solution for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes in order to keep women appointed, available, and taxable. That said, Roe, Roe, Roe (another late trimester conservative) your baby, your granny, yourself down the river Styx.

What gracious and charming people our political opponents are calling for a mob to harass, intimidate and generally bully the families of those they disagree with. This is as revolting as it is dangerous. This lack of adult supervision on the left is very telling. I wonder if they realize their own families are potentially at risk should this become commonplace or if they care?

But we stopped tatting. Jan6 took care of most of that
We are sheep

Lucifer Morningstar | June 10, 2022 at 6:10 pm

It’s time that Chief Justice John Roberts got his head out of his ass and published the decision that overturns Roe v. Wade. I fully understand that he doesn’t want his legacy to be the one that let Roe get away but enough is enough. The reaction from the lunatic leftists won’t be any different now over if he waits any longer. So Roberts, publish the damn decision now before things get even more out of control with the leftist lunatics. You’re supposed to be an independent branch of the federal government. So act like it for shit’s sake.

I think it reasonably clear that Pelosi and Schumer are encouraging the murder of a SCOTUS conservative judge via winks and nods.

Oh Jesus

The supremes just gave away the Country

Mission accomplished…

Supreme Court Votes to Allow Counting of Ballots in PA with Missing Dates
By Joe Hoft
Published June 10, 2022 at 8:45am

Subotai Bahadur | June 10, 2022 at 7:51 pm

I sincerely recommend that the Gentle Readers look up the name Jose Calvo-Sotelo in reference to the Spanish Civil War. We are approaching that moment.

Subotai Bahadur

Has anyone else looked at the Ruth Sent Us website?

It’s so wacked out it looks like parody!

read their ‘demands’.

Someone should ‘dox’ these folks. It’s a sinister tactic but time to fight fire with fire.

    B Buchanan in reply to BillBer. | June 10, 2022 at 11:54 pm

    Re: RuthSentUs

    Reads like it was written by the Babylon Bee! Gosh, what’s the point of satire of the Left does all the work for us?

Ruth Sent Us lists no leaders or funders on its website. However, the group is connected to Sam Spiegel and Vara Ramakrishnan, two Democratic activists. The funding source for Ruth Sent Us, which pays for its website, protest organization, and stipends for protestors, is unknown, though the group is fundraising through Open Collective.

The Gentle Grizzly | June 10, 2022 at 9:43 pm

Time for firearms training for the entire family.

1. Liberty and Justice for all.

2. Equal Rights under the Law

3. Due process of law

These are the principles that undergird our social compact, which the Democrats are industriously trying to destroy.

E Howard Hunt | June 11, 2022 at 5:16 pm

It is a testament to the lady’s decency that she includes the help in her family photo.

E Howard Hunt | June 12, 2022 at 9:34 am

You confuse sarcasm with humor. Get yourself a dictionary.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | June 13, 2022 at 8:00 am

This is morally outrageous, but I’m not naive enough to believe that radical leftists can be moved by moral outrage. But on a practical level, the Democrats had better get these dogs on a leash; if anything happens to one of those children the shitstorm that will land on the Democrat party will be epic.

Now, I don’t care if the Democrat party gets raked over the coals. That’s their problem. But an incident like this can also stoke counter violence, and that is bad for everybody. Things are already bad–don’t make it worse!

if demerit garland doesn’t do something to protect justices he will be postponed soon………watch.

If I attended Barrett’s church, I would definitely go armed!