In Democrats’ push for a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court (which is probably unconstitutional), it is alleged that fifteen Democratic Senators threatened to withhold funding for Supreme Court security if they do not adopt such a binding code of ethics. Senator Josh Hawley is one person who made this accusation:
Now Democrats threaten to cut off security funding for Supreme Court – unless the Justices do what Dems want. This is AFTER an assassin tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Talk about threatening the rule of law pic.twitter.com/5HmtxV23FW
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 2, 2023
To underscore this point:
Many Senate Dems signed an appropriations letter attempting to cut $10 million from the SCOTUS budget. As the case may be, $10 million is the precise amount requested by the Court for additional security protection.
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) May 3, 2023
Another who made this point is Senator Ted Cruz:
Sen. Ted Cruz BLASTS Democrats for threatening to cut off the funding for security at the Supreme Court: "The Left is willing to threaten the lives of the Justices… the attacks directed at the Justices are making them targets of assassination. This is disgraceful!" pic.twitter.com/jNOj78Wqhq
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 2, 2023
Tweeter and blogger John Hoge was legally required to make a Monty Python reference (as are we):
Nice Court You Have There. Be A Shame If Something Happened To It. @AaronWorthing @PatriarchTree @MsEBL @DaTechGuyblog @PolitiBunny GrizzlyJoeShow https://t.co/VHEnWeifNX
— The WJJ Hoge (@wjjhoge) May 3, 2023
Recommended
But the Washington Post rides in to the rescue, with this defense:
Analysis: Democrats didn’t threaten to pull funds for Supreme Court security funding as Sen. Josh Hawley claimed at an ethics hearing on Tuesday https://t.co/6D5Xt9RdLh
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 3, 2023
To quote from the opinion piece:
[Senator] Hawley cited a month-old letter from 15 Senate Democrats to the top Republican and Democrat on a subcommittee in charge of the Supreme Court budget. The letter, which came shortly before the Thomas disclosures, concluded by urging the withholding of $10 million in funding unless Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. notifies Congress that the court ‘has put into effect a public code of ethics for justices.’
Then Hawley got to the crux of the matter.
‘That’s an interesting number to me,’ he said, adding: ‘$10 million. $10 million. Why $10 million?’
Hawley’s staff then brought out a placard showing the Supreme Court’s 2024 budget request. He noted that it included $4,028,000 in security funding from the Chips and Science Act and $5,897,000 in additional security funding.
‘Four plus six equals 10,’ Hawley said, rounding the above figures. He added, ‘So in other words, the threat is: We will deny you security unless you do what we want. … Now members of this body say we will deny you security for you, your families, your children unless you do what we want. Extraordinary.’
We have read the letter, and it doesn’t specifically say the money has to come from court security, but it has to come from somewhere, right? When threats are increased against the Supreme Court, it seems like a bad time to cut their budget.
The irony is that this seems likely to backfire in important ways. We have long argued that the ‘Defund the Police’ movement effectively killed the gun control movement, as did official tolerance for rioting. A regular person thinks, ‘if someone tries to hurt me or my family, I might not be able to rely on the police to save me. I might have no one to depend on but myself.’
Now the Supreme Court justices might believe that they might someday find themselves without security to protect them. Indeed, they witnessed the Biden administration sitting on their hands as people protested at their homes, in a plain attempt to intimidate them:
The Supreme Court marshal asks state officials to act on protests at justices’ homes – NPR July 3, 2022 https://t.co/9BeZbxexX2
— Paul Smith (@rennersmith) July 3, 2022
Those justices might also realize that the day might come when someone might try to break into their homes and attempt to do them (or their families) harm—and they and the other adults in their families would be the only people who could protect them. That is not going to encourage them to interpret the Second Amendment narrowly.
As it is, we are reliably informed that most judges already carry whenever they legally can.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member