Double Standards In Law Enforcement Are Always Unethical, But Blatantly Partisan Double Standards Are Dangerous

Why haven’t authorities moved to stop the harassing demonstrations outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home in Chevy Chase, Maryland? It is pretty hard to deny the reason: President Biden’s administration approves of the cause the protesters support, so it is reluctant to enforce a Federal law explicitly forbidding the conduct that is focused on punishing/intimidating/ harassing a Supreme Court Justice. Meanwhile, as this has been going on for months, House Democrats have been holding an endless, historically-rigged kangaroo “hearing” regarding an 18 month-old protest against Congress that morphed into a riot, as D.C. courts continue to hand out severe jails sentences for participants whose actions were indistinguishable from those of “good” George Floyd rioters who were not tried or punished at all.

Apparently Democrats and progressives believe 1) nobody notices the obvious double standard (that is, the public is stupid), or 2) their constituencies love it, so that’s all that matters, or 3) screw Republicans, they deserve it, or 4) the news media will spin it so it won’t be a big deal.

Having different law enforcement policies for one party and its set of political beliefs and a harsher one for its adversary party is asking for serious civil unrest. This is the calling card of totalitarian governments, yet the party currently in control of this government cynically argues that it is the lone bulwark against an existential threat to democracy. Attorney General Merrick Garland, the official who is charged with seeing that the laws are enforced equally for all, had the gall to complain to the Harvard 2022 graduating class that “we are also witnessing violence and threats of violence that undermine the rule of law upon which our democracy is based.”

So his justification for not enforcing the Federal law against pro-abortion protesters harassing Justice Kavanaugh is…what? There is no justification.

Yes, the news media is burying the issue, but when they try to justify what is happening, they look like the fools and toadies they are. PolitiFact, for example, by far the most openly partisan and biased of the so-called “factcheckers,” boldly tackled the question, “Is it legal to protest outside justices’ homes?” The answer is clear: no. Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, enacted in 1950, states that it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge.” Those found in violation of the law can be fined, sentenced to up to one year in prison, or both. That seems pretty clear, don’t you think? Obviously the protesters are attempting to influence Kavanaugh and the other justices who are getting similar treatment. Permitting the public to try to intimidate and harass judges because of their decisions is unquestionably an attack on the administration of justice. Yet PolitiFact’s verdict is that the unequivocal law “suggests” that the protests are illegal, and who knows? Some court somewhere might find that the law is a First Amendment violation!

It’s amazing that even hyper-partisans take PolitiFact seriously. It’s even more ridiculous than Snopes.

On the other hand, when progressives finally achieve total power by any means necessary and send the bad people—like the five justices in the Dobbs majority—off to gulags or re-education camps or whatever our new Woke Masters have in store, I’m sure PolitiFact will join the other approved media propagandists that helped make the glorious triumph possible.

Heading to the gulag presumably will be Capitol police Chief J. Thomas Manger [above…full disclosure: he’s an old friend], who metaphorically blew the whistle on another recent example of partisan law enforcement. TV talk show host Stephen Colbert’s staffers wandered around the Capitol office buildings without authorization and disobeyed instructions from Capitol police officers to leave repeatedly. They were ultimately arrested and charged, but again, Garland refused to prosecute, his office characterizing the whole episode as a “misunderstanding”—you know, like Capitol security allowing the January 6 protesters to enter the premises. Besides, Rep. Adam Schiff invited them, and he’s one of the good Congressmen who has been trying to concoct some way to lock-up Donald Trump.

Chief Manger found this decision, shall we say, peculiar, as he explained in a letter. The production crew was arrested in the Longworth House Office Building after a staffer for Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) secured his office and called the USCP emergency phone number to report a disturbance outside the office next to Bowman’s. (If he were AOC, he’d have been hiding under his desk presumably.)

The next door office was that of Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). (Note that she’s an evil Republican, also ticketed for the gulag, so whatever was going on, she deserved it.)

“Do you remember me? Do you remember me?” a man with the production crew reportedly shouted outside Boebert’s door. “It’s me. We’re going to leave something under your door.”

The Colbert production crew told responding officers they were credentialed press. They were not. None of the production crew had congressional press identification, nor were they accompanied by a congressional staff member, Capitol rules required the group to have both to be in the building. The same group had already been escorted out of another Capitol building, the Cannon House Office Building, earlier after a Capitol police officer stopped the nine for not having press credentials or a proper escort. Prior to the incident, the Colbert crew applied for press credentials, but were denied. They didn’t bother to appeal the decision because, a representative of the group admitted later “he knew [the production crew] would not qualify qualify as press.”

So they just went ahead and violated the rules and the law.

This wasn’t a misunderstanding at all. It was an example of entitled activists deliberately defying lawful instructions and procedures put in place to protect members of Congress. The intent of the group was to harass GOP members for Colbert’s audience’s amusement.

When officers confronted the production crew, the group’s leader told officers they were in the building to film comedy skits for Colbert’s show, and were planning to film outside the offices House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Ga). He admitted their plan was to “[pretend] to leave notes” under the office doors. “The note was allegedly an invitation to a cocaine orgy,” Manger wrote.

Nice. That’s certainly appropriate conduct for Capitol visitors.

Manger’s letter makes it clear that Colbert’s crew broke the law. “It is unfortunate that despite all of the evidence the Department presented, including that the group or its leader had been told several times that they could not be in the buildings without an escort, that the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to prosecute any members of the group for Unlawful Entry,” his letter concludes.

Well, nice try, Tom. It is clear, however, that this administration/President/Attorney General/party not only is committed to a double, viewpoint-based standard of justice and law enforcement, but it isn’t even trying to hide it.

If you want a civil war, this is how you get one.

92 thoughts on “Double Standards In Law Enforcement Are Always Unethical, But Blatantly Partisan Double Standards Are Dangerous

  1. The King’s Pass is applied here. If it had been a Nobody’s film crew pulling stupid stunts in the Capitol building, they would have been charged.

    But, yes, especially if they had been conservatives/Republicans. Those white nationalists can’t be trusted to make jokes, ya know.

      • Physically, he looks like a Dickens character. He looks hollowed out. Literally spineless. I wonder if he’s ill.

      • Obama has himself to thank at least partially for that. He treated the GOP senators like garbage and didn’t forge decent relationships with them. So when the time came, they told him to go take a run and jump at himself, and there was nothing he could do about it.

  2. Colbert’s bunch caught another break in that Michael Byrd was apparently not on duty in that area then. They may have literally “dodged a bullet”.

      • Maybe that’s because shooting someone who is charging at you, breaking through a window, with a screaming mob behind them isn’t as objectionable as kneeling on someone’s neck for several minutes.

        Every conservative in America believed the former was legally and morally justifiable until it happened to a conservative activist.

        • How many of those “mostly peaceful protests” would have been cut off at the knees if some officer had done like Bird?

          • I can’t argue against a hypothetical, but do you think it would be hard to find examples of actual police brutality at the anti-police-brutality protests?

            • Dunno, but since you can apparently read minds (knowing what every conservative in America thinks), why don’t you find out?

              • Ah, now you’re taking issue with an appropriate use of hyperbole (as opposed to Michael West’s failed attempt earlier). Of course I don’t know that *every* conservative believed in the right to shoot people breaking through your windows while charging at you with a mob behind them. But I do know that was a very popular conservative argument for the right to self-defense, especially in regards to Stand-Your-Ground laws. (And it’s one I agree with.)

                Also–you really *don’t know* that it is easy to find examples of police brutality at the anti-police-brutality protests? And yet you feel qualified to opine on the subject?

                    • Point of reality: Trump was not lying about the election. He believed there were enough irregularities to call into question its results. He should have shut up, but it was no lie.

                    • The Costanza defense. Got it.

                      If you choose to believe something that is objectively ridiculous, against the information provided by all qualified and rational advisers, just because you’re being told what you want to hear by the MyPillow guy and Qanon Syd, I don’t see that as ethically distinguishable from lying. He was given the facts and chose to ignore them because he didn’t like them. He was he President of the United States; the idea that he’s incapable of analyzing evidence and making rational decisions should be just as alarming as the notion that he was lying, if not moreso.

                    • It’s the definition of lie, Nate. I’m a lawyer. It’s an important one. The fact that Seinfeld made a joke about it doesn’t invalidate the concept. The fact that something isn’t true or turns out to be untrue does not, by itself, mean that someone who asserted that false belief was lying. There is no evidence at all that Trump didn’t believe that the election was stolen. People who believe that dinosaurs didn’t exist because they wouldn’t fit on the Ark aren’t lying.

                      Got it now?

                    • Footnote: in CBS’s “special report” after the live hearing, its reporter said that 5 died in the riot without clarifying that all of the fatalities were rioters. That’s deceit, omitting crucial information in order to mislead. The reporter knew the facts; he just chose to advance the media/Democratic narrative by selectively revealing them. Doing that IS a lie.

                    • Again, none would have died in the riot if Trump had not spread false information that motivated the riot.

                    • Again, none would have died in the riot if Trump had not spread false information that motivated the riot.

                      That is exactly like writing none would have died if Patrice Cullors and Charles M. Blow did not spread false information regarding #HandsUpDontShoot.

                  • Also, this doesn’t change the point that she’d be alive today if not for false claims propagated to her by the most powerful man in the world. Or maybe she would have died in some other dumb way because of some other dumb man, but that would be a moral luck argument.

                    • Sure, but so what? “X would be alive today but for Y’s actions” is not proof of a crime or even legal responsibility. She might have been alive if the White House request for the DC National Guard had been granted. She participated in a riot—that’s dangerous and illegal. Ultimately, her choices brought about her death. It’s all irrelevant to the discussion.

                    • It isn’t irrelevant to an ethical discussion, which is what this site is nominally about. I did not bring up the idea of legal charges.

                      It is the president’s duty to accurately assess information. He failed in this duty and promoted false claims that he was warned could lead to violence. That violence ultimately claimed the lives of his own supporters. Just as his refusal to follow expert advice on social distancing led him to hold superspreader rallies that killed his own supporters, including Herman Cain.

                      And the White House did not request the National Guard.

                      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/16/fact-check-no-trump-request-10000-guard-troops-jan-6/8929215002/

                    • “It is the president’s duty to accurately assess information.”
                      How exactly is he supposed to do that? Managers and leaders have to depend on advisors and counsel who know about subjects the President doesn’t. Trump is clueless about the law. [Heck, Michael Cohen, who is an idiot and corrupt to boot, was his personal lawyer.) He was dependant on legal advice, and much of it was terrible.

                      He is responsible for his decisions and his delegations, absolutely, but you can’t claim a duty that no President is capable of meeting. JFK was told by his advisors that the Bay of Pigs would be a breeze. Bush was told by people he trusted that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Biden was told by economists that inflation would be temporary, so he told the country it would be. Maybe he was even told that Brian Sicknick was killed in the Jan. 6 riots—if so, he wasn’t lying when he kept saying that. I think he really believes that a citizen couldn’t own a cannon in the 18th century.

                    • You can’t compare those historical blunders to the litany of conspiracy theories that Trump has embraced and propagated.

                      The January 6th hearings have shown that there were plenty of people in Trump’s orbit who gave him accurate and responsible advice on the election. He chose not to listen to them and to instead listen to the cranks.

                      “Trump is incapable of telling reliable information from unreliable information” will almost certainly be a defense his lawyers use if he is criminally charged (as looks more likely with each new J6 hearing). Perhaps that defense will win out. But such a defense just shows the moral cowardice of those who refused to vote for conviction in the second impeachment hearing.

                    • Even Presidents listen to the advisors who tell them what they want to hear. Arguing after the fact that a different advisor should have been the one whose advice was followed is obvious hindsight bias. We know at least one well-respected lawyer claimed to have a legal strategy that would delay the permanent validation of the election until there could be an investigation that conformed that the election had been “stolen.” Yes, he was full of beans.

                    • The January 6th hearings have shown that there were plenty of people in Trump’s orbit who gave him accurate and responsible advice on the election. He chose not to listen to them and to instead listen to the cranks.

                      So what?

                      People still keep claiming that Russia®™ stole the 2016 election, a claim which was given undeserved credibility by a special prosecutor’s investigation, a claim that was ultimately fabricated by Hillary Clinton.

                      https://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/22/its-confirmation-bias-stupid/

                      If these people marshaled the resources of the Justice Department to give undeserved credibility to a hoax, would they be capable of cheating?

                    • Jack: “Arguing after the fact that a different advisor should have been the one whose advice was followed is obvious hindsight bias.”

                      It seems to me that even a modicum of foresight would have prevented this.

                      Pence knew which advisers to listen to. So did Mitch McConnel. The only ones who did not were Trump and Trumpists. Again, you cannot minimize his unprecedented lack of judgment by comparing him to previous presidents.

                    • I’ve never argued or thought that Trump’s handling of the election showed good judgment, nor did I suggest that other President’s bad decisions mitigate his.They do show that making bad judgments after following poor advice from trusted advisors is not unique with Trump. Nor does the fact that Pence of anyone else did not agree with what Trump had been told change the nature of Trump’s decision. If they had all decided he was right, it wouldn’t have made his decision any better.

                      The only valid point you made is by deliberately putting words in my mouth.

                    • UPDATE! Attention: Nate has been banned, as I’m sure many of the commenters knew he would be, sooner or later.
                      Do not respond to any posts that arrived after 6 PM. your comments will be lost with his.

        • Almost nothing you wrote is true. Babbitt didn’t break the window, and wasn’t “charging” anyone; she didn’t even go through the window. Byrd claimed he couldn’t see her hands (was the 5′-2″ woman about to dive through the window like a porpoise?). Pretty much everything Byrd did was against accepted police use-of-force procedure, and would have gotten an officer elsewhere in deep trouble. Remember what happened to Kim Potter, the officer who had a brain fart and accidentally pulled her pistol instead of her taser in a much more justified situation?

          Jack has previously brought up the commentary of Johnathan Turley on this episode: https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/08/29/ethics-hero-prof-jonathan-turley-and-the-indefensible-whitewash-of-the-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-part-1/

          • Absurd and evil. So she didn’t break the window herself–she attempted to go through it, and the only reason she didn’t succeed is because she was shot, as you would shoot any strange person attempting to come through your window, regardless of whether they broke it themselves. She was warned not to enter and she knew she did not have the right to enter. She was part of a violent mob. The officer did not break any use-of-force procedure whatsoever.

            Jack admits in that thread that he thinks it should be acceptable even for police to shoot fleeing suspects (!), and that the only reason for his position that the shooting was wrong is that…Black Lives Matter says so, so we should persecute Officer Byrd to stick it to them? He doesn’t cite any similar examples that BLM has condemned; he just says that officers have been fired for similar behavior without any evidence, and his example in our current thread is, as previously stated, ridiculous–Floyd posed no threat to the office during the nine minutes the officer had his knee on his kneck, and there were clearly other ways to restrain him. The threat posed by the mob that Babbit was a part of was unclear, and there was not clearly another way to stop them. (I am not sure why his praise of Jonathan Turley as a paragon of integrity and honesty should be taken seriously given the transparently cynical way Jack arrived at his conclusions in that thread.)

            Oddly, Humble Talent and Michael West did the best job at countering that nonsense in that thread. I only wish the clarity of thought and principles over partisanship they showed there was evident in my exchanges with them today.

            • 1. Don’t misrepresent my position or my words. Yes, I think a good argument can be made that when an officer tells a fleeing felon, stop or I’ll shoot, the felon should know that fleeing will get him shot—but that’s not the law, so it’s irrelevant here.

              2. “as you would shoot any strange person attempting to come through your window”… You can’t really think that the so-called castle doctrine that allows homeowners in most states to use deadly force against a home invader applies to security forces at the Capitol, do you? Because it doesn’t.

              3. Black Lives Matter cries police racism and brutality every time an unarmed black perp is shot, period. The facts don’t matter. Every time. No exceptions. Often when an armed black perp is shot, as in the Wendy’s case, or with Jacob Blake. I didn’t write, nor do I believe, that “we should persecute Officer Byrd to stick it to them”—if you’re really going to write stuff like that, you’re not going to last through tomorrow.

              4. There wasn’t even an investigation of the Babbitt shooting before the officer was cleared. That literally never happens when a cop shoots an unarmed citizen, and I guarantee that is not how the situation would have been handled if the races were reversed. Maybe it was a good shoot. I haven’t seen the evidence of it if it was.

      • “How many American know who Michael Bird is? But he killed exactly the same number of unarmed Americans as Derek Chauvin.”

        And how many know that was the only actual homicide there that day…and that it was covered up in a secret tribunal where the perp didn’t even testify?

  3. If people are going to start a civil war because they can’t tell the difference between a mob attempting to overturn an election and a comedy crew trespassing, they would deserve the same fate as those who started a civil war 150 years ago.

      • The goal of the January 6th rioters was to stop certification and grant Trump another term, as you know. (This was also Trump’s personal goal.) Since Trump did not win the election, that is an attempt to overturn the election.

        Whatever you think of the Russia investigation, no one conducting it thought it would undo the 2016 results and give the presidency to Hillary. Had it proven the most extreme claims–that Trump diretly colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 results–the result would have been impeachment and possibly prosecution, in which case Pence would have become president. That isn’t overturning an election.

    • Nate conveniently forgets the riots in DC in January 2017 at he Trump inauguration which were to stop his inauguration. Johnny Depp suggested that perhaps he should assassinate Trump an Madonna thought about blowing up the White House. He also forgets the fact that a mob laid siege to the White House in 2020 for three days injuring dozens of officers, set fire to a building in Lafayette park as well as St Johns church. At no time did any officer fire on the mob that caused the secret service to move the first family to the bunker for his protection. He also forgets Ashleigh Babbitt did not break the window and was merely coming through. Sorry but claiming this was justified simply allows the other side to justify restraining an arrestee but whatever means necessary when they choose not to comply with the officer’s commands. Floyd had a chance to obey but chose not to which led to the use of the trained but controversial hold.

      • I’m not forgetting anything of the sort. Call the riot over Trump’s inauguration an attempted insurrection if you want to, and I won’t object. Neither Obama nor Hillary told anyone to try and stop the inauguration. Trump did pressure Pence to stop the certification and told his supporters to do the same, making January 6th of 2020 an unprecedented event.

        Celebrities saying dumb things that justified a secret service visit to their house does not change that fact. Other riots do not change that fact.

        “He also forgets Ashleigh Babbitt did not break the window and was merely coming through.”

        Ah. I forgot the rule that says if an intruder is merely coming through a window onto your property, you’re not allowed to shoot them unless they’re the one that broke the window.

        “Sorry but claiming this was justified simply allows the other side to justify restraining an arrestee but whatever means necessary when they choose not to comply with the officer’s commands. Floyd had a chance to obey but chose not to which led to the use of the trained but controversial hold.”

        No. Chauvin did not do an approved hold correctly and it was not the only or even the best way to restrain Floyd, who posed no danger at the time of restraint, unlike a woman leading a violent mob.

        • Neither Obama nor Hillary told anyone to try and stop the inauguration. Trump did pressure Pence to stop the certification and told his supporters to do the same, making January 6th of 2020 an unprecedented event.

          What Obama and Clinton did was to get the ball rolling on the “Russians®™ Stole the Election” campaign, involving the FBI from the very start.

          • Ok? Even if that were true (it is not–Russian meddling in the election is a proven fact, documented by a GOP-led House investigation as well as the Mueller report, and was detected independently of Hillary and Obama) it would still not be an attempt to overturn an election, and their goal was never to do so, because they–unlike Trump–knew such a thing was impossible.

            • UPDATE! Attention: Nate has been banned, as I’m sure many of the commenters knew he would be, sooner or later.
              Do not respond to any posts that arrived after 6 PM. your comments will be lost with his.

                • What is it with these Lefty contrarians?
                  They are not unintelligent but why do so many have bad manners?
                  Poorly raised or is it an emotional reaction to venturing outside their ideological bubble?
                  Someone should look into that.
                  Do it for the children.

                  • My theory is that with many of them, they lack the interest or the capability to puzzle out complex issues, like we try to do here, beginning with the problem and then looking for an answer, and are stuck instead with beginning with their pre-determined answer based on a doctrine, and find themselves often defending against genuine arguments and reasoning with mere, and inadequate,cant. So, inevitably, they have to resort to snark, insults, distortions and deflection rather than do what mature, normal, ethical people must do, which is re-consider beliefs and conclusions based on new information.

                    In the Late Nate’s case, the initial debate over AOC faking her cuffs told me all I needed to know. It was obvious that she was faking and later lying about what she was doing with her hands behind her back. The biased news media didn’t defend her, they just refused to focus on her fakery. Once it came out that she was recruited for a photo op by a far Left activist group, and the photos of other “Squad”members pretending to be cuffed even when no cop was nearby, and when Jim Hodgson explained here that AOC’s claim about putting hands behind you was utter BS, the jig was up. Someone interested in a respectful, good faith exchange and relationship here would have said, “Gee, I guess I was wrong. Shame on her.” But he couldn’t do it. And with that I knew he was here to troll and line up talking points rather than discuss anything with an open mind.

      • He also forgets the fact that a mob laid siege to the White House in 2020 for three days injuring dozens of officers, set fire to a building in Lafayette park as well as St Johns church. At no time did any officer fire on the mob that caused the secret service to move the first family to the bunker for his protection.

        Also do not forgert that the network broadcast and print media condemned the clearing of Lafayette Park.

        How would they have reacted to the rioters actually getting shot?

  4. More and more people out here in the hinterlands are becoming aware that we have two systems of justice, one for the favored elites, their allies and useful idiots and another for normal people. Many of us are also wondering where the good guys are in the Biden DOJ and DHS. Where are the mass principled resignations of federal law enforcement officers and U.S. Attorneys? Are there no “good apples left? Are they willing participants in the partisan, incompetent and unethical performance we currently witness? Are they just being “good Germans” and following orders? Are there many who are non-political, but just pension whores, trying to keep their heads down and paychecks coming in until retirement? What exactly is going on? Retired law enforcement officers that I know just shake their heads in disbelief.
    A reckoning in some form is coming, and while our history teaches us that free people will put up with tyranny for a long time before they react with violence, they won’t stand for it indefinitely, so long as they retain the means to, finally and at long last, fight back. That’s why the Left’s persistent attacks on the Second Amendment are so ominous and telling. The history of disarmed populations does not bode well for us if we are taken down that path.

    • They firmly believe they are the right and true preservers of the government against the barbarians, er, Republicans and Conservatives and not Lefties, at the gate. They genuinely believe their cause is just. They simply know better.

      • They will eventually be disabused of that notion, via either politics or violence. They will ultimately have to choose which one. I guess that makes me pro-choice!

        • Wasn’t it Chuck Schumer who warned Trump about what the FBI and the CIA can do and you shouldn’t piss them off. I’m not very optimistic the deep state can be rooted out. They’re too entrenched and too powerful. And self-selecting, like any organization. I’m sure they run off the non-corruptibles.

    • Waiting to hear what, if anything, we’ll find out about the Hunter Biden probe before November. They might not want to “Influence the election”…at least not in the wrong direction.
      After that, we can start wondering how many sheriffs and states will cooperate if the dems succeed in getting their wish list of “assault weapon” bans & etc. passed. The new ATF honcho is probably eager to make a name for himself as the man who saved the country from pistol braces.

      • Yes, we can’t have any of those full-auto bump-stock pistol braces out there! I am hopeful that my state will soon be amending the watered-down Second Amendment Sanctuary Act that they passed last year. It started out saying any federal action that violates the Second Amendment would be considered “null, void, and unenforceable.” But the law as passed says the state doesn’t have to enforce any federal law, treaty, order, rule, or regulation that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) or the state Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Not good enough.

    • The government can reasonably keep protesters some distance away from an abortion clinic but can’t keep protestors away from a judge’s private residence? The public needs access to a Supreme Court Justice’s residence? How is this precedent relevant, counsel? Isn’t a court of law the correct location to exercise one’s First Amendment rights to members of the judiciary?

      • Well they’re not on the residence, they’re on the sidewalk.

        If Republicans want to use decisions about mandatory distances from abortion clinics to argue a similar case about political figures’ homes, that’s a thing they can do.

    • I did find it strange that such a nuanced and accurate Politfact article was used as an example of how horribly biased they are. But maybe that isn’t strange here at all.

      • “But claiming this section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation, Eidelman said”

        It’s like they’re grasping at straws trying to find a way these protests are okay. But the Eidelman quote has nothing to do with the situation. They are not passing through on their way to another protest, or picketing someone else that happens to be living in the same neighborhood as the judge, they are picketing the judge specifically because of a ruling they don’t like. The statute is clear you cannot do this. It’s not interfering with your First Amendment rights; you can still complain about the ruling online, you can still write to the judge, you can write to lawmakers, you can push for appointment of judges you think will decide things your way, but the court system itself is, and should be, bound by the law as written, not by popular opinion.

    • Incorrect, there is a clear difference between protesting at a place of business and a private residence in an attempt to influence a judge. After the judge has ruled picketing a residence is just plain harassment.

      • Read the whole ruling, Rehnquist overturned the part of the law that stopped protesters from picketing right outside the homes of people who work in clinics that provide abortion services.

        Private citizens can have protesters outside their homes but people holding a position of public trust cannot? Bullshit.

        • Unfortunately that’s what the statute says, at least where Federal judges are concerned, and there are sound policy reasons for disallowing it, starting with the possibility of mob rule. You may think it’s bullshit, but there is a difference.

          • It could be an attempt to influence other politicians, in a “this is what will happen to you if you piss us off like this” way. Not saying that makes it justified, just that there are other and more plausible motives than “Let’s influence this justice who has uh already ruled.”

            • Primarily an attempt to influence Supremes future rulings via harassment/intimidation.
              Same thing with being harassed out of a restaurant.
              Influencing any other non-proglibot weakling looking on is a bonus.

            • Wow! “It could be an attempt to influence other politicians, in a ‘this is what will happen to you if you piss us off like this’ way.” Is this from the Vito Corleone school of political science? “Nice little life you’ve got there, judge or congressperson. You sure you want to rule/vote that way? Nothing personal, it’s just business, er, politics.” Or maybe the justice has a dog whose head could be cut off and placed at the foot of his bed? Boy, those conservative justices sure are imperiling our democracy. I guess the Brownshirts didn’t really have anything against Jews, they were just sending a message to shop windows!

              • I still believe you can construct an actual rebuttal some day. I realize you have no incentive to do so here, but maybe another environment could nurture such a talent.

                • I hate to be the bearer of bad news OB but it appears we have a common trolling predator in our midst and he is fixated on you as the weakest of the herd and therefore the easiest prey.

                  • I forget who it was who said someone else who’s been booted from here four years was probably a paid Democratic operative, but some of these posts are starting to smack of that also. It must be nice work if you can get it. Maybe one day this guy congratulate to the level of Bill Maher and really make being an asshole pay off.

    • Perhaps you need to re-read that case. Its not as blatant as you think as it both supports and strikes down provisions limiting protest activity.

  5. And, of course, Minneapolis – Ground Zero for the Great Stupid – has its own reasons for support nascent totalitarianism. They’d rather sacrifice Dave Chappelle than their businesses and homes to the mob.

    It reminds me of a column that was published a good 25 years ago (I believe it was the late columnist Mike Royko but I could be mistaken). A German theater was pressured into cancelling a production of Mozart due to protests by Muslims in Germany about stereotypes. The columnist ended by pointing out how the Germans had avoided the threat of violence and “all it cost them was Mozart”.

    I’ve already remembered that line and it comes to mind every time I see that a performance altered or canceled by somebody finds it offensive.

    • The only Mozart piece I could see there being any issue with would be the opera “Abduction from the Seraglio,” which features some comical Turkish stereotypes and revolves around an attempt to get a kidnapped white woman out of a Turkish harem. It’s a obvious “cartoony” opera, though these characters aren’t supposed to be realistic or all that menacing, like in Rossini’s Siege of Corinth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.