Way to commit with that headline, Washington Post. Don’t you guys have a fact-checker on staff who could tell us definitively if protesting in front of a Supreme Court justices’ home is legal or not? It seems up in the air … Jen Psaki said that it was President Joe Biden’s position to encourage these protests Tuesday at her daily press briefing, a few days after saying that there was no official U.S. government position on it. As long as things stay “mostly peaceful,” the administration seems fine with the protests.
The Washington Post consulted some “experts,” and according to them, the protests in front of justices’ homes “appear to be illegal.”
Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes appear to be illegal https://t.co/xN87Vj2tCL
— Post Politics (@postpolitics) May 11, 2022
Yes or no, WaPo?
National Review’s John McCormack pulled up the relevant section of the U.S. Code, which baffled Sen. Chris Murphy, who’d never heard of it:
Sen. Chris Murphy (D, Conn.) on law that says protests at judges’ homes are illegal: “First time I heard about it was yesterday. So it’s on my list to research.” https://t.co/chElrtgzba pic.twitter.com/my1kcP9sPa
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 11, 2022
Sen. Dick Durbin admitted that he’d never heard of it:
Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin, who condemned these protests as “reprehensible” today, tells me he has “never heard of” this law. https://t.co/iyZSU0wfYE
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 11, 2022
Schumer said yesterday he is comfortable with these protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes so long as they’re peaceful. https://t.co/O8MlGAC3ba
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 11, 2022
"appear"
Did experts say that it appears to be illegal, or that it is illegal?
— Lee C Eldridge (@LeeCEldridge) May 11, 2022
It takes experts to analyze a very clearly stated federal law?
— Anthony Steiner (@anthonysteiner) May 11, 2022
“Experts” are anyone who can read apparently.
— syd 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@SydneyCarton1) May 11, 2022
I searched the internet for 18 USC 1507, it came up in a few seconds.
I read it.
That took another 30 to 45 seconds.
Due to my understanding of the English language, I came to the conclusion it means what it says.
2 minutes, tops.
— Me (@Keefer1958) May 11, 2022
“The experts who only had 2nd grade levels of reading comprehension, because it’s that easy to understand these protests are illegal”
— Soup_To_Nuts (@NutsSoup) May 11, 2022
Well thank you Mr. And Mrs. Expert for telling us what a 5 year old already knew.
— Ari Fantis (@rprez2012) May 11, 2022
— Jimmy McNuddy (@John_Stone_3) May 11, 2022
It's perfectly sensible why this would be illegal. There is a world of difference between using social pressure to attempt to influence what laws are *written* and using it to attempt to influence how existing laws and words are *interpreted*. The latter invites tyranny.
— HEKS (@HeKS44364823) May 11, 2022
Oh, so they can read US code just like everyone else with a set of eyes? Yes, it's illegal. Keep up the fantastic journalism, guys. You're doing great
— Hobson's Choice (@cnutts84) May 11, 2022
So…maybe your intrepid reporters and columnists can inquire as to why the law isn’t being enforced.
— RepublicanDore (@RepublicanDore) May 11, 2022
Because aborting babies is so important that it transcends the law.
Related:
Jen Psaki says WH will ‘certainly continue to encourage’ pro-abort protests outside Justices’ homes, ‘and that’s the president’s position’ https://t.co/qUXZsqi90a
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 10, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member