Image 01 Image 03

Radical Leftists Protest At SCOTUS Justices’ Homes. Again.

Radical Leftists Protest At SCOTUS Justices’ Homes. Again.

“This is a criminal threat to the safety of Supreme Court justices,” Sen. Mike Lee tweeted

As we’ve been covering here at LI, the radical left has declared war on one of the three branches of our government.

They are on the warpath because it’s the one branch of government over which they (now) have no control.

The leaked opinion overturning Roe was the stated reason for the attempts to shut down DC and to disrupt the business of the Court.

In addition to attempting to disrupt DC and SCOTUS, protests outside conservative justices’ homes were widespread following the leak, despite, as WaPo Begrudgingly Admits[,] ‘Protests’ Outside Justices’ Homes ‘Appear To Be Illegal’.

The outrage resulted in one crazed leftist engaging in an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh.

The radical left has repeatedly refused to support SCOTUS justices; indeed, Democrats are actively pushing back against calls to arrest protesters and have even threatened to remove security funding for members of the highest court in the country. Indeed, it appears the thoroughly corrupt hactivist currently serving as Attorney General is playing a role in ensuring that the lawless protesters are coddled in their lawlessness.

Roe is no longer the law of the land, and abortion has gone back to the states (where it belongs), so you’d think that there would be no reason to protest outside SCOTUS justices’ homes, right?

Yeah, no. Protests are picking up steam again outside the private homes of conservative Supreme Court justices.

Their mindless chanting pertains to some kind of “ethics oversight” the radical left dreamed up to try to control the Court. All nine justices signed a statement rejecting this unconstitutional lunacy, yet—and to no one’s surprise—it’s only conservative justices being targeted for the latest round of unethical protesting ‘for ethics.’

The Daily Signal reports on the latest round of illegal protests that corrupt Biden’s corrupt DOJ will ignore.

Illegal demonstrations apparently are continuing to take place at the homes of the Supreme Court justices despite federal law forbidding such activities.

Far-left activists with Our Rights DC posted video on Thursday evening showing them demonstrating at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home, chanting, “We want ethics on the court.” Their remarks come as Democratic lawmakers call for the Supreme Court to adopt new processes for recusals and ethics allegations—essentially making the court answerable to Congress.

This protesting has frequently occurred in spite of 18 U.S. Code 1507, which forbids picketing or parading “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of intimidating or influencing that person.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has admitted that it is a federal crime to protest outside a judge’s home with the intent of influencing that judge, but he has not enforced that law, though both Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan requested that he do so.

Our Rights DC’s video shows the activists walking by Kavanaugh’s home as authorities stand guard.

The Daily Signal has asked the U.S. Marshals Service whether any arrests were made last night. The Marshals Service did not respond to requests for comment.

Fox News has more:

The activists descended upon Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice John Roberts’ neighborhood Friday. The protesters appeared to be outside of Kavanaugh’s private residence in a short video clip posted to Twitter.

“One, two, three, four: We want ethics on the court,” the protesters chant in the video, which then chops between a few moments. Armed security detail appears in the video.

“This is a criminal threat to the safety of Supreme Court justices,” Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee tweeted in reaction to the video. “Why are U.S. Marshals being instructed not to make arrests?”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has opened an investigation into the DOJ order to U.S. Marshals not to arrest illegal protesters outside justices’ homes.

Fox News, in a separate article, reports:

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is spearheading an investigation into why the U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to “avoid” arresting protesters camped outside a Supreme Court justices’ private residence, “despite the actions clearly violating federal law.”

. . . . “The training materials provided to the U.S. Marshals strongly suggest that the Biden Administration is continuing to weaponize federal law enforcement agencies for partisan purposes,” Jordan wrote in a letter to U.S. Marshals Service Director Ronald L. Davis, first obtained by The Hill, after Britt’s discovery.

“While authorities apprehended the man who intended to do harm to Justice Kavanaugh, we are aware of no other arrests or charges for agitators demonstrating outside of the justices’ homes—despite the actions clearly violating federal law,” Jordan continued, as he seeks to address the lack of arrests.

Jordan also called out the lack of arrests in an interview with Fox News Radio Wednesday, stating that it is a “crime to protest in front of a judge’s home.”

“It’s actually a crime to protest in front of a judge’s home with the intent to change a decision, to impact a pending matter in front of the court. And obviously, that’s what they were doing after the leak came out,” the Ohio congressman said, referring to the protests and demonstrations that occurred after a leak of the Dobbs decision last May.

It seems quite clear that the radical left won’t rest until they can appoint more leftist justices to the Court . . . by any means necessary.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Left is tossing lit matches here and there. They yell about stochastic terrorism but then foment it. Of course, if anything bad happens, they will deny capability.

Even the Marshals


Maybe the people, conservatives can protect the houses
But it shouldn’t need be

henrybowman | May 6, 2023 at 9:24 pm

This is why the founders gave the militia duties.

BeAChooser | May 6, 2023 at 9:39 pm

If they can use protests, why can’t we?

    wendybar in reply to BeAChooser. | May 7, 2023 at 5:43 am

    Because they run things, and the right caves every time.

      CommoChief in reply to wendybar. | May 7, 2023 at 7:31 am

      So Pro Life protesters didn’t show up nearly daily at abortion clinics for decades? The right didn’t work to advance Judges from District to CT of Appeals and eventually to a SCOTUS majority that overturned Roe?

        CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 7, 2023 at 8:08 pm

        You don’t want effective protest strategies coupled with pubic pressure and the application of Constitutional power which achieves victory?

        You want to go play in the streets have at it hoss, I ain’t stopping you. Don’t come crying when some some Soros DA locks your ass up b/c you you chose poorly on recognizing the threat environment, employed bad tactics and worse strategy in failing to achieve your goal.

        You wrote: “That’s exactly what the protests I suggested would do. Use MASS PROTESTS (our First Amendment right), protected by patriots carrying weapons (our Second Amendment right) to force changes in our election laws that will prevent the possibility of cheating.”

        Here’s the definition of terrorism: “The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.”

        No one here is interested in your absolute crazy lawlessness and terrorism. A Soros DA wouldn’t stop it, by the way, one of two things would happen: you get a hot civil war as the citizens you are terrorizing start shooting in defense of their lives (which you are threatening by cutting off food, fuel, power, etc.), or you get flattened by local, state, and/or federal law enforcement (or even the National Guard or actual military).

        My guess is that you’d never get enough people on board with such a lawless and immoral scheme (which is why you are here, no?; did you get kicked off the fringe nutter rightwing sites? Trying out normal people since even the crazies told you to pound sand?). But if you did manage to get enough people on board, you’d never get in place before the feds swooped down and arrested the lot of you . . . to great cheers and relief from everyone who is not a terrorist.

        Ironclaw in reply to CommoChief. | May 8, 2023 at 3:19 pm

        Would you like to quote the federal law that says you can’t demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic?

        I didn’t misrepresent anything; you literally wrote that you want to cut off food, power, and fuel in order to force the government to bend to your wishes. This is stupid on its face given that each state has its own election laws, or do you intend to hold the whole nation hostage until every single state’s legislature has passed the laws you demand? And what of states that have already fixed their elections laws (Florida, Alabama come to mind)? Do they get to keep eating food, enjoying electricity, and driving their cars? Your proposal is very clear if mind-numbingly stupid.

        Protests preventing access to infrastructure might be enough to do that. Stop the movement of food. Of fuel. Stop the delivery of electricity. Especially to Blue strongholds.

        Violence will only occur if the authorities try to stop the protests.

        Your words. Not mine. And what they describe is literal terrorism. And it’s disgusting.

        You keep dropping weird little things about the owners of the site and my role here. You have been here for less than a month. Maybe you should figure out what a site is about before you start trying to gin up mass shutdowns of infrastructure intended to starve and otherwise harm civilians until your terrorist demands of 50 state governments are met?

      BeAChooser in reply to wendybar. | May 7, 2023 at 2:02 pm

      That’s not an answer. That’s just loser talk. You’ve given up.

    aslannn in reply to BeAChooser. | May 7, 2023 at 7:20 am

    Because we have jobs, families, and lives.

      BeAChooser in reply to aslannn. | May 7, 2023 at 2:04 pm

      You think the Founding patriots didn’t have jobs, families and lives. You’ve given up.

Steven Brizel | May 6, 2023 at 10:26 pm

The left is clearly intimidating anyone who dissents from their line

CountMontyC | May 6, 2023 at 10:32 pm

These are the same people who scream “nobody is above the law” when any Republican is accused of a crime. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

“Roe is no longer the law of the land,…”

Roe was never a law, but merely a court opinion.

We are at war. Prepare accordingly.

It wasn’t stopped the first time, who in their right mind didn’t think it would happen again?

These people are not “radical leftists”. They are approved political mercenaries. Approved by the Dem party, DOJ and every other alphabet agency the party owns. .

Bucky Barkingham | May 7, 2023 at 6:48 am

Suppose some patriotic group held a peaceful demonstration outside the house of Associate Justice Sotomayor because she did not recuse from the case involving her publisher. Would the Feds just stand by and watch?

Sounds like its time for Youngkin to pass a State law prohibiting protests outside of private homes. If the DOJ won’t do their jobs, then someone else needs to do it for them.

MoeHowardwasright | May 7, 2023 at 9:21 am

Roberts is the head of the Federal judiciary. He alone can order the US Marshall’s to do their constitutional jobs. Make the arrests. He could also suspend the law licenses of Garland and any other federal official for failure to uphold the constitution and laws. Does he have the “balls” to do that?

stevewhitemd | May 7, 2023 at 11:04 am

As a test case, couldn’t we get a few conservative protesters to protest outside the homes of Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan? Just to see what happens? And if those protestors are arrested or chased away by the US Marshalls, then have the video into Rep. Jordan’s hands the next day.

    BeAChooser in reply to stevewhitemd. | May 7, 2023 at 2:05 pm

    That’s not the sort of protests we need. That won’t change a thing.

      CommoChief in reply to BeAChooser. | May 7, 2023 at 8:54 pm

      Bro, you are coming across very Ray Epps ish today with this constant yammering about ‘protests’. You consistently reject the ideas of those who offer up suggestions for peaceful protests. Why is that?

      Exactly what kind of ‘protests’ are you proposing? You haven’t stated them in the comments on this article though you did make references to the Revolutionary War. All this seems to beg the question; how long have you been a Federal operative?

      You are barking up the wrong tree with incitement and appeals for someone to take the bait and post some incendiary comment at LI. This ain’t that sort of website. The proprietors, authors and commenters are Patriotic Citizens who love their Nation and choose to use persuasion and elections to to achieve their goals while respecting the principle of non aggression except in defense anyway. No one here is dumb enough to fall into that sort of trap even if they were so inclined. Go pound sand.

        I haven’t “run” anywhere, and you hear crickets in response because what you “propose” is disgusting and literal terrorism. You are either a fed or a terrorist. Starving cities, literally, by cutting off food, electricity, fuel, etc. during peacetime is sick and demented. Armed citizens surrounding cities and shutting down infrastructure until elections are fixed (somehow, presumably, you will have a list of demands)? That is terrorism, as far as I am concerned, and if you manage to recruit anyone to that cause, I will support any steps governors of those states take, up to and including a national guard response.

        CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 8, 2023 at 7:28 am

        You got one thing correct. I don’t pay close attention to the rantings of what appears to be either a Federal operative working to gin up conflict, a leftist troll or a simple dumbass.

        The fact that people don’t respond to you is not evidence that you won an argument. It just means you’re not worth engaging. Have you noticed how few people do engage your comments, and when they do, it’s to call you out as a fed or a lunatic? Do you honestly think that’s because you are so persuasive and effective?

        BeAChooser in reply to CommoChief. | May 8, 2023 at 3:32 pm

        CommoChief writes “You got one thing correct. I don’t pay close attention to the rantings of what appears to be either a Federal operative working to gin up conflict, a leftist troll or a simple dumbass.”

        Actually, what I got right is that you didn’t prove the election system has been fixed in Arizona. So my challenge about naming one state that Biden won in 2020 that democRATS won’t win in 2024 stands. That being the case, I hope you enjoy living in a leftist, dictatorship. Because I don’t think they’ll let you hide from the truth like you’re doing now.

        BeAChooser in reply to CommoChief. | May 8, 2023 at 7:10 pm

        Fuzzy Slippers writes: “The fact that people don’t respond to you is not evidence that you won an argument. It just means you’re not worth engaging.”

        And yet here you are, AGAIN. You feeling lonely, Fuzzy?

          Nope, of course not. I’m just doing my job moderating the comment section. It’s a slow day since everyone else is perfectly normal, constructive, and often amusing, so I am killing time responding to your terrorist threats against the American people.

BierceAmbrose | May 7, 2023 at 2:21 pm

I have been reliably informed that these “protests” are legitimate attempts to influence the court. It’s just “dialog” and “discussion.”

— Shouting and chanting slogans — is “argument”

— At their homes, offices, and in between — not disruptive

— Armed from time to time, while their protection details stand down — not threatening at all

This looks a lot more like extortion than persuasion.

This is also, perhaps mainly, an exercise to reframe the court as political. Protest is a thing you do to influence political actors. The court is getting protested. Therefore the court must be political. Q. E. D.