Image 01 Image 03

The Left’s Three-Part Strategy Targeting The Supreme Court

The Left’s Three-Part Strategy Targeting The Supreme Court

My appearance on the Jesse Kelly Show: DOJ refusal to enforce statute prohibiting protests at Justices homes means “it’s essentially mob rule, whoever controls the streets is going to control everything.”

I appeared earlier this week on the Jesse Kelly show on First TV to talk about The Left Targets The Supreme Court:

Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson says the Democrats are increasing the pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The last true stronghold of the three branches of government, Democrats have been outspoken on delegitimizing the court or increasing oversight with the ‘ethics board’. Jacobson also gives some thoughts on the unsolved Dobbs Leaker incident.

I was pleased with the appearance except for one thing: I had a really bad hair day.

Partial transcript below the video:

Partial Transcript (auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)

Kelly: Joining me now, Bill Jacobson, Cornell University law professor and founder of the Great Legal Insurrection. Bill, I’m almost positive it’s illegal to do that out in front of a Supreme Court Justice’s house. I read that somewhere. But you’re the lawyer, you tell me.

WAJ (00:37):

Well, there is a federal statute which prohibits protesting at a judge’s home, not limited to Supreme Court justices, at a judge’s home for the purpose of influencing the judge or obstructing justice. So the question would be legally, are they trying to influence? Well, certainly the protests that took place between the leak of the Dobbs decision and the actual Supreme Court issuing its decision clearly were intended to influence the justices. And I think you could probably say these so-called ethics protests also are, they’re trying to influence them to go along with Dick Durbin and the other Democrats who want to impose some sort of external ethics code on the Supreme Court justices. So I think clearly it violates the statute. Now, some people say the statute’s unconstitutional and has never been challenged, but it’s on the books. And as we know, the FBI and the DOJ love to enforce even petty laws that are on the books when it’s politically convenient for them.

Kelly (01:38):

Okay, well, what kind of a country do we have then? I don’t mean to step away and get too broad with this whole thing, but what kind of country do we have then when, if Democrats are in charge, they can just decide not to enforce laws? If Republicans are being harassed, that’s okay. So you don’t have a Constitution anymore? Well, I don’t know what this is, but you don’t have a country.

WAJ (02:00):

Well, that is a problem. I mean, it’s unheard of. I’ve never heard of until after, you know, when the Dobbs decision leaked, protests at Supreme Court Justice’s homes. I mean, that was unthinkable. And the White House was reticent to criticize it, call it illegal. They were, they were, it was a nod and wink to these protestors and, you know, Democrat politicians as well.

So I think it’s very, very frightening because what it says is, uh, it’s essentially mob rule, whoever controls the streets is going to control everything, and that’s obviously not the way it needs to be. So it’s an extremely troublesome development that DOJ, which can be extremely aggressive, including prosecuting people for ‘parading’ on January 6th, will not enforce a statute that is on the books, is the law of the land right now, which says they can’t be doing what they’re doing. And so I think that’s extremely troubling, but it’s typical of what’s happened with Merrick Garland and with the Biden Department of Justice. Everything seems to be political these days.

Kelly (03:08):

Everything’s political. All right. Well, let’s move on then to this. It’s very obvious there’s been a ramp up in attacks on Supreme Court. Justice is not just the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh, the smearing of Clarence Thomas, which I know is nothing new, but that’s obviously ramped up. It’s obvious to me at least that they’re coming for the court in some way that they can’t stand, that there’s any kind of a bulwark. Do I have that right?

WAJ (03:35):

Yes. Well, the US Supreme Court is really the one institution that has not been completely captured by the left. Congress goes back and forth, but certainly the Supreme Court conservative majority is going to be there for a long time, and it is driving them absolutely crazy that they can’t control absolutely everything. And so I think it’s a three part game that they’re playing. One is simply to diminish the influence of the court and diminish the respect of the court. And therefore you have calls for people from the progressive movement, but others also, to disregard Supreme Court decisions, disregard court decisions. So it’s to limit the influence of the court.

The second one, I think, is to justify some sort of court packing or change in the nature of the court, but to do that, they’re gonna have to get a lot more votes than they currently have. So that’s probably not going to work out for them. And its polls very poorly, court packing.

The third one, which I think is what they’re really up to here, is to try to pressure one or two of the justices to resign by making their lives so miserable. So they’re protesting outside their homes. There’s been an assassination attempt on one of them. They are going after family members now. And so what I think you’re seeing is a lashing out, trying to pressure one of the justices to resign or worse. And they wouldn’t say it, but I think that’s lurking behind, that maybe next time one of these protests will be effective and will either injure or kill a Supreme Court justice. And I think that’s part of what the game plan here. Of course, they’d never say that, and that probably isn’t the game plan of Dick Durbin, but these crazy activists who are out in front of the house, I think are up to no good. And I think there should be a lot more protection for these justices than they’re getting.

Kelly (05:34):

Why is it a big deal that the Dobbs decision leaked and that they’ve never found the guy,

WAJ (05:40):

The guy or the gal? We don’t know who it is. That is part of this effort to undermine the court. this undermining of the court is not a new thing. It didn’t start with the leak of the Dobbs. The Dobbs leak was in, in effect the symptom of the bigger problem, which is a lack of respect for the court as long as it’s controlled by a conservative majority. So it undermines the court’s ability to deliberate, to express views to each other. Initial decisions are not always the final decision. And if Justices can’t feel free to share their thoughts with other justices, that in and of itself obstructs the normal administration of justice. It also sets a precedent. It sets a negative precedent that you can do this and get away with it.

So what’s the next thing that somebody’s going to do that they’re gnig get away with? So once you break a norm, once you say that the things that have always guided us, even if they’re not written in law and they’re not written in stone, but they’ve always guided us as, as normative normal behavior, no longer apply, then there’s a whole slew of things that can happen.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


At this point, anyone who doesn’t see that Garland, Biden, Myorkas and Blinken need to be impeached – or the openly gathering the votes – as soon as possible are either fools, suicidal or with the GOPe.

Sh*t is going to hit the fan very soon, and it’s going to shock the hell out of everyone who thinks “it can’t happen here”.

Legal Einstein… is a complement.

E Howard Hunt | May 11, 2023 at 7:39 am

This problem can easily be solved by a good volumizer, a careful wash and blow dry, and perhaps a touch of Nancy Boy pomade.

“protests”are a protected “right” only of the thugs masquerading as the Democratic Party. Let someone protest at an abortion clinic, an illegal election, or oppose the removal of General Lee’s statue and it suddenly becomes an “armed insurrection.” The woke, Satanic monsters who are presently governing the US of Pedophiles will soon find themselves out of power and they will greatly regret they killed the rule of law as it is essential they be annihilated before a Second Republic can be established.

    Concise in reply to panamapat. | May 11, 2023 at 10:24 am

    I would suggest conservative groups organize their own demonstrations, absent the lunatic lefts’ violence, but I think it’s more than apparent that the DOJ/FBI would mercilessly hound and prosecute any such demonstrators. Not sure where we are in the scheme of corrupt totalitarian regimes, Maybe at mid USSR level?

      ekimremmit in reply to Concise. | May 11, 2023 at 11:14 am

      I would suggest parading outside Merrick Garland’s home and the three liberal ladies’ homes exactly as we’ve seen the leftist have done.

It’s time to stop calling them Democrats. They’re not. The former Democratic Party became the Communist Party USA in the Sixties and they are busy carrying out Karl Marx’s plan for a worldwide communist revolution, using the descendants of former slaves as their primary vehicle, just as Marx intended when he pressed Lincoln to make the War Between the States about slavery instead of national union.

    paracelsus in reply to SamC130. | May 14, 2023 at 11:39 am

    Communist Party USA? I don’t know. Communist is such a well-worn term it’s become almost meaningless (and the Soviet Union is gone). Call them Socialist-Progressives (S-Ps), or, if you like, tack on an “A” for Anarchist (SPAs); I believe that encompasses their entire philosophy.

    Also (to LI and its readers and commenters):
    I wish the learned would stop calling the people crossing our Southern Border without Invitation “immigrants.”
    My folks were immigrants (from the Ukraine and Czechoslovakia); filled out their papers, had their invitations, and learned and spoke English (accented perhaps) and only English, from the moment they stepped ashore – they were Americans now and Americans spoke English.
    The people flooding across the southern border today are invaders and should be titled as such.

I think the next decision where someone dislikes the dissent, or votes of Kagan or Sotomayor and start protesting outside their homes.

“What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander” and all that. A taste of their own medicine.

See how Garland and Biden react to that development.