Senate quickly passes law to "protect" Supreme Court Justices

[FelineOverlord]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[DURHAM D]

1. That sucks.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. But of course. The system always protects itself.

[Carlitos Brigante]

8. It's the Club, protecting the Club. nt

[Blecht]

49. And none of us are in it.

To paraphrase George Carlin.

[AZLD4Candidate]

70. My sig line says it all.

[FelineOverlord]

3. Senate quickly passes law to "protect" Supreme Court Justices

Link to tweet

[Hoyt]

4. Glad sponsor Democrat Senator Chris Coons got this through. We can hate on the Justices, but

this legislation is important to a democracy, as are some other pending bills.

[WarGamer]

6. +1000 nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. I'd be behind it if they'd been as equally swift

to enact protection for those threatened by rightwingers as they always are to protect the rightwing and their thugs.

Where was this urgency when people had to literally move because of the threats of death and violence coming from the right?

But they can't stand a little peaceful protesting?

[Hoyt]

21. Get it. Find legislation that 60+% of Senate agrees with, it will pass.

Or vote in enough Democrats to codify everything important to us.

This bill will protect Democrats too, and with trump, militias, etc., probably more needed.

[FoxNewsSucks]

25. We'll see. I'm not betting that it will protect democrats.

THEY always need protection from our peaceful protest. Their thugs need protection from us while they harass and intimidate us.

If you're still not sure how that works, go to one of those states that passed laws allowing people to use their cars to mow down BLM protesters in public streets. Find some rightwing protesters, such as gunhumpers or abortion clinic harassers, and mow them down.

See if that law applies to you the same way. I'll bet not.

[Hoyt]

31. Well, if I round a corner on a highway blocked by Proud Boys, Oafkeepers, etc.,

and I feel threatened, I’m gonna use that law to ram them if needed to protect my family.

I get none of this is fair, moral, or ethical.

[FoxNewsSucks]

41. I agree completely with that.

I'm just not as certain that the law will protect you or any other liberal the same way it would protect a MAGAt at a BLM protest even though it should.

Just ask Marissa Alexander how that sort of thing works.

[wnylib]

51. What threats are Trump and his militias posing

to their idols on the court?

[soldierant]

77. Yes. Senate Republicans are not thinking.

It's far less likely that Democrats will consider, much less use, physical violence on Republican justices' families than it is that Republicans will consider, threaten, and use viviolence on Democratic justices and their families.

If we could get this also applied to Senators, Repuresentatives, their staffs, and Executive Branch officials and their staffs we would have ourselves a great tool to protect ourselves and our people.

[kelly1mm]

58. The Supreme Court Justices already had protection. This bill extends protection to their families

Like ACB's 7 kids who I am assuming are not the 'thugs' you mention above. None of their family members are voting on this and need protection.

[in2herbs]

28. No, the right to privacy is important to a democracy. nt

[Hoyt]

36. +1. You won't have any rights if we end up in chaos. Only, the well armed willing

to kill to rule.

Look, I don’t like this chit either. But it’s better than chaos, depression, wars, sleeping with one eye open, starvation, and gawd knows what else. At least most states have decent laws and programs.

[in2herbs]

39. Change always creates chaos, and Americans, until now, have resisted changes that

moved us forward. This USSC is moving us backwards.

The "decent laws and programs" you refer to should be available to everyone in every state. No exception.

[Bettie]

96. The right to privacy is what they are taking from

women.

That is what Roe was based on.

So, the right to privacy isn't for 'ordinary' people, but rather for the high and mighty only.

Why do they want to go after Griswold? Because that established a right to privacy.

[markpkessinger]

105. Thank you! n/t

[wnylib]

43. Effin' BS.

[Hoyt]

44. Senator Coons? Think not.

[wnylib]

50. I think so. I don't care who sponsored it.

It is an infringement on speech and a protection that the court members are not willing to extend to others who deserve it.

If and when they respect citizens' rights, there might be room for extending protection to court members who deny those rights to citizens.

[Hoyt]

53. Justice Sotomayor appreciates your support.

[wnylib]

56. Nice try but you and I know

that enforcing this law's protections on liberal court members will be so rare as to be nonexistent.

[Hoyt]

57. In Washington, DC, under Biden Admin. Think you are wrong.

[wnylib]

64. Time will tell.

I remember being told that I was wrong when I predicted, before the 2020 election, that Trump would call on his militia thugs to nullify and overthrow a Dem win.

Who will enforce the law? I would think enforcement would come under the jurisdiction of where a justice lives.

[Hoyt]

66. But, he failed and SC denied him like what, 50 times?

[wnylib]

74. Under existing state laws, which Trump and MAGAs in red

states quickly moved to change. Now MAGAs can do it legally. Their state legislatures can now overthrow the voters' choice and certify their own candidate.

Talk about protests. Watch what happens the first time those overthrow laws are used.

The SC will support the legislatures, too, because the Constitution allows states to make their own election laws and certify their own candidate.

What are the chances that some constitutional experts, perhaps even court members, advised Trump and his MAGAs on this?

I am at a point now where I am unwilling to move an inch regarding RW thuggery, abuses of power, manipulative and biased creation of laws, and uneven enforcement of laws.

[Hoyt]

81. If you read those laws, it's not that easy, but admit not impossible. What state are you

most worried about?

[onenote]

93. You think wrong. Enforcement is by the Supreme Court police and US Marshals

Apparently 99 percent of the commenters on the Senate passed bill haven't bothered to read it.

[wnylib]

98. I did not find and read it until

after my post.

But thank you for your gracious and tactful response.

[dixiechiken1]

60. Aren't there already laws in place that protect them?

It seems unlikely that they were totally without protection by some law or other. What does this hastily passed law provide for that they weren't already getting?

[Hoyt]

63. Apparently, Democrat Coons thought not, or maybe he just thought it

necessary to remind some people. Agree with him.

Get to the polls to vote, protest at SCourt or local courthouses, block up the halls, etc.

[dixiechiken1]

68. I'd seriously like to know why this is necessary...

I'm not for it or against it because I don't know what's in it. I DO question why the hell it was passed so quickly. Amazing how quickly they can act when they want to. Too bad they can't move this quickly to protect 51% of US citizens. Hell, all this time and they've never seriously tried to codify Roe. But wow, inconvenience Judge Kegs and what, 2 days to pass a new law? *smh*

Something's fishy here...

[Hoyt]

72. Ask Coons and all the other Democrats who voted for it. Don't think it

was some nefarious plot.

Agree with why can’t we pass a lot of other serious stuff as quickly.

[wnylib]

79. Good point about asking Senate Dems.

I am in NY, so I should call Schumer's office to find out.

And Kirsten Gillibrand.

I would be interested to know how many Dems voted for it compared to Republicans, and their names.

[onenote]

94. Yes, which is why the title of the OP is misleading

What this amendment to the current law does is give the Supreme Court police the authority to protect the families of Supreme Court justices (and other officers of the Court) if deemed necessary.

It is essentially identical to existing law that gives Capitol Hill police the authority to protect the families of members of Congress.

[markpkessinger]

107. Yes, there are. 18 USC § 1507

18 USC §1507 states:

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - 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.
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

[Marius25]

78. No, this legislation is not important to Democracy.

It protects tyrants.

[WarGamer]

5. I'm shocked that so many DU'ers are against this...

Let's hop in the "What If" machine.

President Hillary Clinton appoints her FOURTH Supreme Court Justice in April 2022... establishing a 6-3 Progressive Majority.

After confirming the Constitutionality of the latest anti-gun violence act signed by President Clinton...

Hordes of Right Wingers and Gun Humpers gathered around the homes of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Garland...




Still think SCOTUS Judges don't need security?

[FoxNewsSucks]

17. They'll probably find a way to make it not apply.

"Protection" is only for them. Not for the people threatened by them. That's the reason for the opposition.

[walkingman]

22. No, Jesus will protect them.

[in2herbs]

32. Why didn't Congress react when Gov. Whitmer was threatened and almost

kidnapped and had to leave her home???

[wnylib]

55. +1000.

[uponit7771]

84. +1,

[markpkessinger]

106. Excellent Queettion

Once again, it's a case of Democrats managing to be their own worst enemy!

[Hoyt]

38. Not shocked by anything nowadays.

[NYC Liberal]

42. They already have security and have for a long time.

[former9thward]

59. They don't have routine security.

Justice Scalia taught a summer class at my law school and he had no security at all.

[uponit7771]

86. They have more security than they're willing to grant women's bodies.

[wnylib]

47. I think that women need security and privacy.

I think that abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood health care clinics need protection and privacy.

I think that ordinary citizens need privacy and security in their own homes from no warrant police invasions.

I think that 6 current members of the SC don't give a damn about citizens' privacy rights and don't deserve it for themselves when they don't respect it for anyone else.

I think that imposing restrictions on citizens' rights to protest a court member's home is an infringement on first amendment rights.

I think that imposing religious restrictions on women's healthcare and on LGBTQ people is an infringement of the first amendment, too.

The protest at Kavanagh's house was just that, a protest. It was not a threat. No property damage was done. There was no display of arms like RW extremists use at demonstrations.

I hope this does not pass in the House and that the right to protest is upheld, just as the right of anti choice demonstrators to harass women at health clinics was upheld by the SC which now whines about privacy.

[Silent3]

76. I'm not against this bill at all. The only thing that bothers me...

...is the stunning hypocrisy of incredibly fast action on this, while more important things either languish or get totally blocked.

[uponit7771]

85. I'm shocked you're *NOT* shocked at the speed the senate is able to pass protection for USSC ...

... who is trying to take away protections from the rest of America that aren't white males for the most part.

No really, the comfortable are OK with the bullshit from this hack assed court while the rest of us have to TRUELY think about living in a fascist state.

[onenote]

95. Not shocked. Virtually no one commenting on it has actually read it.

[Sympthsical]

101. I'm more bothered by how no one seems to have read the bill

Literally assuming it says things it doesn't, then spreading claims and asserting opinions based on reality imagined. No reading necessary. We just know things. Through pixel osmosis or something.

Social media at their best.

[markpkessinger]

104. This legislation feeds the right's narrative . . .

. . . about "violent leftists." That's why I oppose it!

All that has happened to the justices is that a few people have created a disturbance in their neighborhoods. Big fucking deal! They are NOT facing any physical threat!

I've read the posts by those who think this is a good thing and is "necessary for democracy." But the effect of this is to drive home the narrative that people on the left pose a threat of violence. It feeds the "both sides" BS of the Beltway punditry, and ultimately serves to undermine the left in the eyes of much of the public. And worse, that narrative in turn justifies in the minds of many the actions of many right-wing governors and state legislators to try to preemptively suppress the left.

Once again, Democrats are complicit in Republican dirty work!

[Irish_Dem]

7. They care nothing for the lives of most Americans.

They were glad to see 1 million Americans die from Covid.
And all the children who are killed by gun violence.

[Hoyt]

45. Well, they did hold firm against trump when it counted.

[wnylib]

62. Which inspired Trump and MAGA legislators

to pass voter suppression laws and laws in red states that allow their legislators to overthrow an election outcome in their states and select their own candidate.

If you think there are protests now, wait until you see what happens the first time one of those overthrow laws is used.

[Hoyt]

65. I agree with that. Don't think one of those laws will be used like that, but if

it is, we’ll all be in streets.

Odds are low — but admittedly not impossible — if one actually reads the laws.

[wnylib]

80. Why would the odds be low?

They passed those laws for a reason.

[Hoyt]

82. What state are you most worried about? I'll look at their law and

post back sometimes tomorrow.

[uponit7771]

87. So the people who attacked America on J6 wont use overthrow laws to take control? Come on man ...

[Hoyt]

99. I'm discussing state law with wnylib. State laws that people are concerned COULB BE used to overturn

a state's election results.

I asked for a specific state that has recently passed laws that COULD BE used to overturn election results.


Here's an analysis of the impact of Georgia's recent law that some people claim COULD RESULT in state overturning election results.

I agree this legislation is concerning -- especially the part about removing local election boards -- but even it is limited in GOPers' ability to steal an election. This summary made me feel a bit better --

Does Georgia's new election law allow Republicans to overturn election results? No.
Will Peebles, Savannah Morning News

". . . . . . .In Chatham, the five-person elections board, four of whom are elected, acts as the superintendent. If, after a performance review, the majority of the State Elections Board votes that the county elections officials demonstrated "nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence," then they can appoint a replacement superintendent.

"But this provision has limits. It can only be done in four counties at a time. Plus, it would be impossible to put an appointee into place during or immediately following an election, since the preliminary hearing required beforehand must be at least 30 days after the request to investigate. [The certification deadline for Georgia counties is even shorter now: six days after the election, down from the previous 10-day deadline. It's 17 days after the election for the state certification.]"

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2021/04/07/georgia-new-election-law-republicans-overturn-results-senate-bill-202/7092460002/

Chatham County went 58.6% for Biden.

I know it's not popular, but I think we'll survive Georgia's new legislation even if the Courts don't act. It's not that hard and I hope we don’t discourage voters by making it sound like their votes won't count.

[uponit7771]

100. Facing reality is not "discouragement" we both already know this and we both also know we're

... not just talking about a couple of states and few laws either.

We're BOTH going back to when the SC nixed the force of the VRA and up till now not just the new horde of laws that GZP is putting on the books to make it even harder to vote.

We need a *HIGHLY SOCIALIZED* GOTv plan that addresses GZP anti voter laws and "people should be less stupid in filling out x" shouldn't be a part of it.

[Irish_Dem]

88. Many of the GOP enabled him.

Helped him with his crimes and 1/6.

We don't yet know the extent of us 4 yr crime spree and all those who helped him.

Yes a few stopped him. Or are pretending that they did.

[Autumn]

9. Will the Senate be this quick to pass something to save the lives of the women the SC is planning on

murdering with their decision?

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[hamsterjill]

54. Exactly.

Somehow I don’t think they will move to protect ordinary people. It’s sickening.

[wnylib]

67. They will not act to protect the lives of women

because... well, it's "only" a women's issue.

So, they will not protect women at health clinics. They will not protect women's rights to protest.

They will not protect women. Period.

[FelineOverlord]

10. I'm not against it

They should have security.

I'm just astonished at how quickly it was passed.

We're still going to protest them wherever they go.

They really need to take those barriers away from in front of the Supreme Court, though.

It frustrates people and protesters go to their homes.

And they are still our bitter enemies.

[Captain Zero]

69. Yeah that was fast, not one of them gunned down yet, and they get a law passed

First graders in Connecticut, not so much.

[dixiechiken1]

90. ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[dchill]

11. This kind of shit is why the Senate blows so hard.

[dweller]

12. It's in Speaker Pelosi's hands now

We shall see



✌🏻

[Groundhawg]

13. This is good legislation. It protects the good justises as well.

[FoxNewsSucks]

27. Don't bet on it. The right only protects themselves

Their protesters are protected. Their protested are protected. Their thugs are protected.

Ours are not.

[in2herbs]

33. I haven't read anywhere where the 3 liberal judges are being protested against so how

does this legislation protect them?

[wnylib]

75. Supposedly in case RWers retaliate

against our protests by seeking out liberal justices.

But enforcement of the law will likely be in the jurisdiction of where the justices live. So will VA law enforcement protect liberal justices?

[Groundhawg]

102. When we get a decision that favors us, then the law is in place to protect

our good Democratic judges.

[Cha]

14. And, who shall Protec US from the Extreme 5?

Link to tweet

💙💛

[UTUSN]

15. *SOME* groups matter

[gratuitous]

18. Remember this when a popular initiative gets stopped cold

Like for instance, the fact that anywhere from 60-70% of Americans favor the full range of health care for women, and the two houses of Congress are asked to codify that popular initiative.

[LonePirate]

19. Elites protecting elites while giving a middle finger to the average American. Nothing ever changes.

[Fullduplexxx]

20. Rich people move quickly when their protecting members of the club

[Baitball Blogger]

23. Ha-ha. Someone needs to file a lawsuit that should make it to the Supreme Court.

It's not right that they should stop protests, while they allow others to be harassed by protestors.

[Blue_playwright]

24. I'm just kinda surprised...

… that they don’t already have that level of protection. 🤷‍♀️

[Solly Mack]

26. Some folks are more equal than others, I guess. To some.

"Hang Mike Pence" is free speech during a visit by "tourists" through the Capitol - that left the injured and the dead in its wake.

But

"We will not go back" on a public sidewalk is a threat and a danger.

[MontanaMama]

46. Exactly this.

[Bettie]

29. The Super privileged right wingers must be protected at all costs

mustn't upset them or make them feel bad.

For fuck's sake. They are moving toward killing or destroying a whole lot of women and girls, but THIS is the most important thing?

[Mad_Machine76]

30. What was the special need for this (and so quickly?)

A few peaceful protests?!

[in2herbs]

35. Why the "special need"? Because some rich old white men are afraid of women. nt

[leftstreet]

37. Maybe someone broke Alito's yard gnomes?

If you're going to make rulings as horrific as reversing Roe v Wade, best to live in a gated community or something

[onenote]

40. All it does is give the current Supreme Court security force authority to protect justices' families

It essentially does the same thing as existing law that authorizes the Capitol Hill Police to protect the families of members of Congress.

Existing law already authorized protection of the Justices themselves (so the description in the OP subject is misleading). See 2 USC 1966.


Here is existing law with the language added by the new law in bold:
40 USC 6121
(a) Authority of Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police.—In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Marshal of the Supreme Court and approved by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Marshal and the Supreme Court Police shall have authority—
(1) to police the Supreme Court Building and grounds and adjacent streets to protect individuals and property;
(2) in any location, to protect—
(A) the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and any official guest of the Supreme Court; and
(B) any officer or employee of the Supreme Court while that officer or employee is performing official duties;
(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.’’.

[Cozmo]

48. Oh Good God, who cares we got bigger fish to fry!

[Duppers]

61. think the post was just about pointing out

their hypocrisy, yet once again.
And I collect these points to throw at my Repub brother whenever he works up the courage to argue w/me.

[Duppers]

52. K & R

[live love laugh]

71. Whiney sniveling Kavanaugh can't tolerate protests. POS

[FoxNewsSucks]

73. They are delaying the delivery of the kegs

to his house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wnylib]

83. If he had a keg and a woman to assault,

I guess that would cheer him up.

[DLevine]

89. Yes, let's protect the privacy of those who are all up in my uterus.

Seems fair.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

91. Meanwhile, after the son of a federal judge was killed in an attack at her home, the Senate sleeps

on the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of increasing the security state -- but the difference between a law fast-tracked because some judges had to face angry but nonviolent protests and a law languishing in committee after a Latina judge's son was shot dead in her home is not a great look and says a lot.

[onenote]

92. The two bills are very different.

The bill passed by the Senate yesterday is a one paragraph provision that basically fills a gap in the law whereby the Capitol Hill police had authority to protect the families of members of Congress as deemed necessary but the Supreme Court police did not have comparable authority with respect to the families of Supreme Court justices. (Notwithstanding the misleading title of the tweet in the OP, the law already protected Supreme Court justices.

On the other hand, the Daniel Anderi Judicial Security and Privacy Act goes well beyond that:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2340/text

[onenote]

97. Should the law authorizing protection of the families of members of Congress be repealed?

Question for those outraged that this same protection is being extended to members of the families of Supreme Court justices.

[Stinky The Clown]

103. I hope the House votes "Fuck You"

[markpkessinger]

108. No. 1: The Justices have not in any way been threatened; and

No. 2: The legislation is unnecessary and redundant:

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - 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.
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

[DFW]

109. ".....to help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese."

Tom Paxton's song gets yet another round of relevance.

The extremist wing of the Supreme Court is deliberately endangering the lives of ten of millions of Americans, and it is THEY that need protection? Who will protect US from THEM?

[orleans]

110. i must have missed this news

my reaction:
are you fucking kidding me???

[malaise]

111. So they can pass laws for judges but not to protect

People from assassins with guns

[Emile]

112. I hope they enjoy their rights to privacy. Seeing how they are setting an example

for the rest of us, maybe they'll have second thoughts and honor ours too. .