Pro-abortion activists protested outside of the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts on Saturday. The protests erupted after an unprecedented SCOTUS leak indicated that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were about to be struck down.
The activists shouted slogans such as “we will not go back” and carried picket signs. At Kavanaugh’s home, some of the protesters attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court Justice, shouting lines such as “we see you, buddy!”
Protests organized for the purpose of influencing Supreme Court Justices and judges for the purpose of influencing a case are illegal under federal law. This has not stopped pro-abortion activists, including Brett Kavanaugh’s own neighbor, from organizing them.
The Washington Post revealed the identity of one organizer and sympathetically depicted her activities without noting that personally pressuring a Supreme Court Justice to render a given outcome is illegal.
“Lacie Wooten-Holway walked through Chevy Chase on Wednesday night, pausing to stick fliers on her fence, a tree and utility boxes,” WaPo reported. “She was advertising an abortion rights protest here, in her neighborhood, in front of the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.”
“We’re about to get doomsday, so I’m not going to be civil to that man at all,” she told the Post.
The Washington Post dredged up the absolutely baseless accusations against Kavanaugh that he purportedly committed ‘sexual assault’ while furthering the activist’s messaging. The publication failed to note that Christine Blasey Ford, his primary accuser, admitted through her lawyer that her charges were politically motivated.
“She’s furious at the thought of a world without Roe — that a few mostly male justices are making that decision for millions of women, and that Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual assault, which he denied, could be one of them,” the Post continued.
The Post also conveniently failed to rectify Ms. Wooten-Holway’s misleading argument due to the inconvenient fact that Roe v. Wade was decided by an all-male Supreme Court.
A neighborhood activist protesting at a Supreme Court Justice’s home is one thing, but the White House and the Justice Department giving such potentially illegal activities their tacit blessing is quite another. Legal analyst Jonathan Turley put the protests into perspective.
“In this case, the Biden administration and the Justice Department have condemned the court’s leaked draft — but not the threatened protests at justices’ homes, even though those arguably could be treated as a crime,” Turley wrote. “Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)”
“Even if protests at justices’ homes are constitutionally protected, that does not make them right,” he added.
Yet on Friday, the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appeared on MSNBC with host Nicolle Wallace. Pelosi hinted to radical protesters that they should mobilize ‘public sentiment’ to influence the court. Watch:
“We have to have the clarity in what this draft decision means, so that what the final decision doesn’t go that far,” Pelosi said.
“The chief justice has said, this is, this is authentic, but it is not final,” she went on. “I don’t know if he is word authentic. It’s real, but not final.”
“So again, Lincoln said public sentiment is everything with it,” she continued. “You can accomplish almost anything — without it, nothing — and women just have to weigh in.”
“I don’t think there’s a good outcome here, but I think there’s a better outcome than what we have seen in the first draft, which is radical,” she added.
Speaker Pelosi’s words come in the aftermath of heated protests at the Supreme Court building, which spurred the court’s officers to erected barricades and high fencing to maintain the court’s security.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who is soon departing her office to join far-left media outlet MSNBC, was asked abot the protests at the Supreme Court Justice’s homes, which were facilitated by doxxing.
“I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest,” Psaki said, adding that “peaceful protest is not extreme.”
Psaki was also asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy about the radical left’s intimidation tactics.
Doocy: "These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the sort of thing this President wants?"
Psaki: "I think the President's view is that there is a lot of passion."
Disgusting that the White House is refusing to condemn this. pic.twitter.com/i5ErEBZ25X
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) May 5, 2022
“These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the sort of thing this President wants?” Doocy asked.
“I think the President’s view is that there is a lot of passion,” Psaki said. Her glib response is essentially a tacit endorsement.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas this week delivered a rare public message to those who would compromise America’s institutions.
Thomas, speaking at the 11th Circuit judicial conference in Atlanta this week, directed his message towards those who seek to ‘bully’ the court — a reference to those who leaked a draft opinion that a SCOTUS majority aims to overturn landmark abortion decisions.
“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that,” Thomas said.
Earlier this week, far-left groups published the private addresses of Supreme Court Justices’ homes in order to encourage protesters to protest there. Attempting to pressure a U.S. court into rendering a specific decision is illegal.
“We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” he also remarked, while expressing there is a “different attitude of the young,” who may not show governmental institutions the same respect as previous generations.
“It bodes ill for a free society,” he added.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.