The draft Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade reveals the lawlessness of the administration and the media as they encourage illegal protests, spread misinformation, and allow their surrogates to use violent rhetoric for political purposes. Alas, this isn’t the only issue where the same techniques are used…
Imagine if you will a MAGA crowd surrounding the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s home with the express purpose of intimidating her about a pending case. The crowd is so large and unruly the Justice and her family need to be evacuated for their own safety and are forced to remain at an undisclosed location for an indefinite period, literally hiding simply for doing her Constitutional duty. The case is so explosive that the Supreme Court itself has authorized additional security for her and the other progressive Justices, as MAGA supporters across the country are openly calling for increasing the intensity of the intimidation, sometimes with violent, dare I say insurrectionary language, like issuing a call to arms. At times, the protests veer into the bizarre and macabre. There are props and reenactments, further calls to violence and even murder among the more typical chants and placards. In middle America, a non-profit group that opposes the protesters is firebombed, a Molotov cocktail thrown through their window. Further, the protesters and their supporters promise they will not stop, will not relent, will not disperse until they get their way and the Court accedes to their demands, and President in power, a MAGA Republican, seems to tacitly support it all, refusing to condemn anything except the most egregious acts like the firebombing.
What do you think the media reaction would be to anything even close to that happening while Donald Trump was in office, less than 2 years ago? Today, however, these tactics are perfectly acceptable and the President feels no compunction to defend the Justices or the Court in any way, shape, or form. At least, so says Robin Abacrian writing for the Los Angeles Times who begins with a two wrongs make a right approach more suited to an elementary school student. “Before we delve into the ethics of peacefully protesting in front of a Supreme Court justice’s home, I’d like to remind you about some of the havoc wrought by abortion foes after the court legalized abortion in 1973.” This havoc includes 12 murders by religious fanatics who were likely mentally disturbed, 42 bombings, and 194 incidents of arson over 45 years. “So when I hear people freaking out about Saturday’s peaceful protests in front of the Chevy Chase, Md., homes of Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh, or a vigil Monday evening in front of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s home in Alexandria, Va., I just can’t get too worked up about it.” After all, “That’s nothing compared with the cost they impose on Americans who may be about to lose control over their own bodies.” MSNBC takes a similar tack, writing that it’s “good” and the “Supreme Court should not be considered immune to citizen feedback” as if there was anyone saying they are and some shortage of ways of making your voice heard in the year 2022.
The administration itself is in agreement with their progressive friends, actively encouraging the at every turn. “The president’s longstanding view has been that violent threats and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe of course in peaceful protests,” Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters earlier this week. “So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date,” she added later. “And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.” Ms. Psaki also adopts the two wrongs make a right standard, noting that some parents have protested outside the houses of local school board members and the Michigan Secretary of State without mentioning that Biden’s own FBI announced a nationwide program to consider offensive parents terrorists last year. Of course, she couldn’t help but mention the January 6 riots at the Capitol Building, claiming “The silence is pretty deafening about all the other intimidation that we’ve seen to a number of people.” This framing can only be considered gaslighting of the highest order: The riot at the Capitol provoked an impeachment proceeding and a Congressional investigation. It is widely referenced in the media as one of the worst calamities to befall the country in decades, some say since the Civil War, and is just as widely condemned by conservatives as an unacceptable act of political violence.
Nor does it bother anyone making his argument that protesting outside the homes of judges and Supreme Court Justices is illegal for obvious reasons. Even the normally Biden-friendly Washington Post has published multiple times on the topic, once by conservative Mark Thiessen and again by Aaron Blake, the paper’s Senior Political Reporter. He wrote, “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 likely illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.” He goes on to quote Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University’s law school, who said “The statute would seem to apply both because … they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations, but also because the statute has a catch-all ‘resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.’”
For the record, here’s precisely what the statute says, “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 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.” These provisions were upheld by the Supreme Court itself in 1965 and 1983. Given that we only know about the decision because it was leaked in draft form, potentially illegally, and the protestors have not gathered outside the homes of progressive justices, the goal of these gatherings can only be to change a Justice’s vote before it is cast, which clearly means they are attempting to influence an officer of the highest court in the land. These are not protests on the courthouse steps after the fact, or generalized protests about a recent decision. Instead, they are specific, targeted gatherings to change minds before the decision is made. They serve no other purpose than that end, and yet the people in charge of enforcing our laws are actively encouraging lawlessness.
Moreover, they are simultaneously feeding these protestors a steady stream of lies, one might call it misinformation. President Biden takes the lead in this regard, wondering “What happens if you have states changing the law, saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit, under the way that the decision’s written?” As usual, it’s impossible to say what he might be referring to as no one has recommended or endorsed anything of the sort, and the reasoning referenced in the draft decision has no impact on anything related to the LGBTQ community. Justice Alito noted this specifically, and even if he didn’t the same sex marriage and other rights recently extended to the gay and lesbian community have been done so under equal protection, not privacy. Unlike the purported right to privacy that protects abortion, equal protection actually is a part of the 14th Amendment. The Amendment is clear: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is in this clause that minority rights primarily reside and the penumbras and emanations of privacy are irrelevant. President Biden is a lawyer and surely knows this. In his role as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States and the President of both those who agree with the potential ruling and those who do not, we should expect him to comport himself with some modicum of objectivity and fairness. Certainly, something short of spinning outright fantasies to stoke the flames of the far left. Instead he prefers to parrot and augment the misinformation spreading throughout the mainstream media.
That, and smear his political opponents, who he described as the “most extreme” group in United States history before correcting himself and adding “modern.” In his mind, radical progressive organizations like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers that proudly committed violence for their cause are not as extreme as the pro-life movement, a view supported by around half the country depending on which poll you choose. Nor does it occur to him that extremists in his own party openly endorse barbaric practices like partial birth abortion. What could be more extreme than partially delivering any infant before sticking a spike in its head and sucking out its brains? Sadly, this is the approach President Biden generally takes when confronted with anyone that disagrees with his position. Rather than debate the point of disagreement and clearly state his case, he smears his opponents variously as Neanderthals, recalcitrant members of the Confederacy, and segregationist supporters of Jim Crow, neigh Jim Eagle laws, all while denying any and all responsibility for his own actions. This trend remains constant whether or not the topic is a leaked Supreme Court decision or out of control inflation. In that regard, Ms. Psaki bizarrely insisted that “I don’t think anyone could have predicted” inflation a year ago, even as the question specifically noted two left-leaning economists that worked for President Barack Obama who did exactly that. “As we look ahead to tomorrow’s inflation speech, let me ask you to look back at some of the warnings that were issued last year by Summers and Rattner and so on. In retrospect, were they right that some of the government policies were going to lead to inflation?” a reporter asked earlier this week.
Ms. Psaki’s response is something to behold in the newly emerging field of misinformation, of which she is surely a foremost expert. “I wouldn’t say we agreed with them then, and we don’t agree with them now. I would note that as a relates to actions like the American Rescue Plan, the alternative to not putting in place and advocating for the American Rescue Plan would have been the economy continuing to spiral. Right? We would — we were providing assistance and relief in the form of checks to people who needed that assistance at the time. If we look at the recent inflation data, a large, depending on which data you look at, two thirds to even 70 percent of inflation data is a result of energy prices. A large part of that is the result, Chairman Powell has spoken to this and Secretary, Secretary Yellen has also spoken to this, is a result of President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the impact on the global energy markets. Those are all steps and impacts that I don’t think anyone could have predicted a year ago.” Incredibly, her boss, President Biden himself, was even more bizarre when he insisted shortly afterwards that inflation was our “strength,” even though the frustration among Americans was so sharp “I can taste it.” After explaining that, “We’re in power. We control all three branches of government. Well, we don’t really,” the President said, “The number one threat is the strength, and that strength that we’ve built is inflation.”
Perhaps even more incredibly, these are the people who think they are capable of running a group dedicated to stopping the spread of disinformation. Here’s a suggestion: Just keep your mouths shut for fifteen days to slow the spread. That will cut cases of the disease in half or more.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 