Why Do Protesters Think It Is Okay to Gather at the Homes of Justices?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the freedom to protest but under certain conditions. As soon as the leaked Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade came out, protesters descended on the Court to make their opinions known. They have a constitutional right to assemble or to gather with other people to protest. Therefore, they were not doing anything wrong when they peaceably protested at the Court.

However, protesters crossed the line when they gathered at the homes of the Supreme Court justices to protest. They exhibited poor judgment to protest in the streets, on the sidewalks, and in the yards of the homes of the justices. According to various sources, the protesters may have committed crimes when they tried to intimidate the justices while frightening the justices’ families.

Zack Smith and John G. Malcolm published an article on the matter at The Daily Signal. They indicated that the wrongness in the action of the protesters is shown by comments from the Democrat side. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and he had the following counsel for the protesters: “I think it’s reprehensible. Stay away from the homes and families of elected officials and members of the court.” The left-leaning Washington Post published the following statement in their editorial section under the title “Leave the Justices Alone at Home.”

The right to assemble and speak freely is essential to democracy. Erasing any distinction between the public square and private life is essential to totalitarianism.

The protests are part of a disturbing trend in which groups descend on the homes of people they disagree with and attempt to influence their public conduct by making their private lives – and, often, those of their families and neighbors – miserable.

To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based, and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary.

            There may be state or local laws that prohibit protesting at the homes of the justices. However, a federal law – 18 U.S.C. §1507 – seems to directly prohibit such action. At least, numerous legal experts think that it applies to this situation.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge … in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge … 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.

            Smith and Malcomb wonder why the Department of Justice is not acting against the protesters. They reminded their readers that the DOJ was “quick to condemn parents who showed up at school board meetings … to protest the radical policies being pushed by some board members.” They noted that Attorney General Merrick Garland made a statement but did little else. Garland “continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court justices,” and he “directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help ensure the justices’ safety.” 

           However, Garland stopped short of issuing a statement about the breaking of the law or being “prosecuted and held accountable for their actions.” The protests around the homes of the justices are every bit as bad as the protest at the Capitol Building on January 6, but the protesters in the two situations are being treated differently. Where is the rule of law?

 

Freedom to Protest

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday comes from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                Following the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States (POTUS), many protesters took to the streets of numerous cities to protest his election. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to express their thoughts, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress. The protests started peaceably, but some of the protests became destructive.

                I find it interesting that many liberals were concerned that conservatives would riot after the election – even though conservatives did not riot after either of the elections of Barack Obama. They wanted Trump to pledge to accept the results of the election because they were sure Hillary Clinton would win it. They were stunned when Clinton lost, and they immediately took to the streets to protest. The protesters did not get want they wanted, and they reacted as two-year-old children throwing temper tantrums.

                There were instances of flag burning as well as claims that the protesters were being paid to march. There are also reports that some of the protesters did not choose to vote or even register to vote. Some of the protests turned into mob actions, and property was destroyed. Many protesters were arrested even as the protests continued.

                Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should have acted as grownups and told their supporters to go home and accept the results of the election. Instead, they said nothing. When they did make comments, they simply added fuel to the fire of indignation with their statements.  Most liberals are so used to getting their own way that they do not know how to lose gracefully.

                An editorial from Deseret News says, “The right to protest and the freedom to assemble are fundamental rights. They have also been the catalyst of important social change throughout American history. Yet, when a protest lingers long after an election, and in some instances causes danger, putting added strain on law enforcement, the utility of such a post-election protest is questionable.

                “More perilous is that such protests often cause politics to become so polarized that it makes it hard for politicians to work together.

                “Real political solutions come from listening, understanding, mutual respect and compromise. The business of persuading and unifying is hard work. Uncomfortable as it may sound, it takes a healthy dose of empathy and human compassion.”

                Americans have the right to assemble and to march in the streets in protest. I believe that this right does not include the right to burn the flag of our country or to destroy the property of other people. The election is over, and the “children” have thrown their “temper tantrums.” Now it is time for all of us to work together as we hold Mr. Trump to his promises to make our country great.