The New Intimidation Game Democrats take on the judiciary. James Freeman
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intimidation-game-11651869753?mod=opinion_lead_pos11
Five years ago the Journal’s prescient Kim Strassel published “The Intimidation Game” about the political left’s bare-knuckled attempts to silence conservatives. Now the so-called progressives who run much of the American government are encouraging or condoning efforts to bully the Supreme Court into political obedience.
Today Ms. Strassel writes:
The liberal response to Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade was as predictable as it was substance-free. Forget any discussion about the legal reasoning in the case. Or any soul-searching as to how Democrats came to face a 6-3 conservative high-court majority. Or any internal debate about how the party might craft an agenda that resonates with the public, so that it can maintain its hold on power and begin the process of reshaping the court.
Instead, Democrats proposed to burn every Washington institution down. Party leaders and activists openly attempted to intimidate the justices, hoping to change the outcome.
The unapologetic effort to bring political pressure to bear on the judiciary is shocking even to some media folk. Here’s the transcript of an interview T.J. Holmes of ABC News conducted this week with Rep. Karen Bass (D., Calif.) after Justice Alito’s draft opinion was leaked:
Mr. Holmes: Congresswoman, the Chief Justice called this an egregious breach, this leak. What should happen to the person who leaked this? It might not rise to the level of a criminal act, but–but it’s not just that this was a leak. This was a leak in this particular case, at this particular moment. What should happen to the person who leaked this?
Rep. Bass: Well, I think it’s going to be very curious as to who that person was and what their motives were, but I do have to say, I’m glad that it was leaked, because now maybe, just maybe, the justices will rethink this as they see the outrage spread across the country. We know that–or at least we are hearing, that some vote took place, but we also know in the process before a final decision is made there could be other drafts. We have to see what the Chief Justice is going to do. So, maybe, maybe, it provides a little bit of hope that this will not ultimately be the decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Holmes: Well, Congresswoman, that’s a touchy road to go down as well, to think we–we want the court not to be influenced by politics. Are you saying now that this is out there that maybe they will see the backlash and change their minds? We don’t want our court to be doing that either, to be influenced by public opinion or debate out there, do we?
Rep. Bass: Well, seriously, we know the court is always impacted by public opinion. Absolutely. And I’m just saying that maybe it gives an opportunity for them to rethink that. But I think that it would be naive to think that the court is not influenced by public opinion.
Mr. Holmes: Well, call me the naive American out there, Congresswoman.
Call Mr. Holmes sensible and responsible for recognizing the role of the judicial branch in interpreting the law, not bending to political will. He stands in stark contrast to elected Democrats who casually and recklessly attempt to influence America’s independent judiciary.
Readers may recall a pathetic non-apology issued in Washington two years ago. NBC’s Rebecca Shabad of NBC News reported at the time:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday that he regretted saying that two Supreme Court justices “won’t know what hit” them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions, but insisted he was not making a threat and offered no apology.
This week anyone hoping for a clear White House rejection of the intimidation game has been disappointed. Here’s the transcript of Thursday evening’s White House press conference, when Press Secretary Jen Psaki was questioned by Peter Doocy of Fox News:
Q… So, you guys had some time yesterday talking about what you think are the extreme wings of the Republican Party. Do you think the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of the justices’ houses are extreme?
MS. PSAKI: Peaceful protest? No. Peaceful protest is not extreme.
Q But some of these justices have young kids. Their neighbors are not all public figures. So would the President think about waving off activists that want to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland?
MS. PSAKI: Peter, look, I think our view here is that peaceful protest — there’s a long history in the United States and the country of that. And we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence.
Let me tell you what I was referring to and what the President was referring to yesterday.
Q Not about yesterday, though — just about moving forward. These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the kind of thing this President wants to help your side make their point?
MS. PSAKI: Look, I think the President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to — to protest. That is certainly what the President’s view would be.
Q So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. I want it — we want it, of course, to be peaceful. And certainly, the President would want people’s privacy to be respected.
But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here: The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years. Their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own healthcare are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
As far as the President’s duty to enforce federal law, a reader shares the text of 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which states:
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.
As it happens this portion of the law was amended by the 1994 crime bill, when federal lawmakers removed from this provision language imposing a $5,000 limit on the fines to be assessed.
The 1994 law was passed with the support of Sen. Joe Biden (D., Del.) and was co-sponsored by Rep. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
That was back when these two career swamp-dwellers thought it was good politics to protect judges.
Comments are closed.
