https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/09/house-delays-judicial-protection-bill-in-order-to-expand-coverage-of-personal-security-details-to-staffers-aides-receptionists-chauffers-and-dc-employees/

House Delays Judicial Protection Bill in order to Expand Coverage of Personal Security Details to Staffers, Aides, Receptionists, Chauffers’ and DC Employees

theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/09/house-delays-judicial-protection-bill-in-order-to-expand-coverage-of-personal-security-details-to-staffers-aides-receptionists-chauffers-and-dc-employees

June 9, 2022

If you know the way Washington DC thinks, specifically thinks about their own scale of importance amid a world filled with lesser people who do not understand the value of their elite place in the construction of government, then you could easily predict what is happening right now.

A previous Senate bill that would have afforded security details to Supreme Court Justices, is now stalled in the House of Representatives as Nancy Pelosi and top Democrat politicians add an additional set of people who should gain the full benefit of taxpayer-funded security details.

Democrats in the House are using the opportunity provided by bipartisan agreement to enhance the personal security services for the Judicial Branch, in order to assign the same privileges to staff, aides, and people who work within the administration of government. DC is nothing if not predictable in its elitist view of its self-importance.

At the same time Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats, along with some insufferable republicans who pretend not to know how these issues are always manipulated to the benefit of the administrative state, are urgently constructing limits and restrictions to disarm lawful Americans; they are simultaneously building their own system of personal protective services to ensure they never have to face the same physical risks they initiate upon everyone else.

WASHINGTON DC – […] House Democratic leadership didn’t agree to the vote because they want a broader bill that would include enhanced security, which could include extending protection to clerks and other staff.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer during an exchange on the floor why Democratic leadership hadn’t put the bill to a vote after it unanimously passed the Senate.

“I think it’s a very relevant question,” Hoyer said in response. “Hopefully can move that as early as possible. I want to tell the gentleman the reason he thought that it might be moving this morning was that last night I thought I had after discussions with Sen. Cornyn, a way forward both the Senate and the House could agree on. Unfortunately, this morning that appeared not to be the case.”

The bill’s purpose was brought into sharp focus early Wednesday when an armed man was arrested near Kavanaugh’s Maryland home after making threats against the justice, according to a court spokesperson. The man told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill “a specific United States Supreme Court Justice,” according to an FBI affidavit filed Wednesday.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Duck Durbin said earlier Thursday that the House is “ready to move” on the bill, telling reporters that “we’re ready to meet with them and resolve our differences” on the legislation.

“What happened this week with Justice Kavanaugh is a reminder that we live in a dangerous place, and these people are vulnerable and we should protect them,” Durbin said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been critical of the House for its inaction on the legislation, and on Thursday he slammed Pelosi for what he called a “dangerous dereliction of duty” for slow-walking its passage.

“Inexplicably, this urgent and uncontroversial bill has been sitting on Speaker Pelosi’s desk ever since,” he said. “The same House Democrats whose irresponsible rhetoric has contributed to this dangerous climate are themselves blocking added security for the judges and their spouses and their children.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Coonskin of Delaware told CNN on Wednesday he is still working with the House on a compromise to enhance security, which could include extending protection to clerks and other staff. (read more)

It is simply the way they think…

Pelosi was very clear when she previously erected a fence with armed guards to keep out the riff-raff.

• • • -

- Nasty wants to protect the progressive interns because she knows what we all know……one of the lefty judges interns leaked that opinion piece. My guess is there are more leaks planned and Nasty is getting ahead of the game.

- This is to provide cover for the “leaker”…

>>16420474

- I should think the US Marshall service might be tasked immediately with enhanced protection of the SCOTUS Justices. Surely, there is existing security at SCOTUS, which could be expanded without Congressional action at least temporarily.

Expansion “in order to assign the same privileges to staff, aides and people who work within the administration of government” seems too massive to even contemplate. Surely the various Departments already have some security.

I can’t tell if this is just the unreasonable expansion of government, or a deliberate move to leave Kavanaugh unprotected until the release of the Roe v Wade decision, as a means of intimidation.

If I were him, I would move myself and family, secretly, to a secret location, until the decision is released.

The “controversy” is almost all among the fanatic Left. Even the NYT, I believe, has started dealing with the newsworthy aspects of moving the regulation of abortion back to the States. NY, for example, wants to be a sanctuary for abortion seekers from other states, and appears to be working to get out front in the competition among the pro-abortion states to attract that new “business.”

Once the decision is made, the controversy WILL move to the State capitols, where it belongs. There may be long-term haters who will continue to wish conservative Justices ill, but the risk should decline over time.

It may flare up again briefly when the leaker is uncovered. As I recall, one clerk is a close friend of the reporter who broke the story. A simple lie-detector test for that individual – to be followed if he doesn’t fail and confess – with similar tests for all the clerks, should get him to fess up.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/10/watch-jen-psaki-says-white-house-encourages-peaceful-protests-outside-justices-homes/

''WATCH: ~~Jen Psaki~~Peppermint Paddywagon Says White House Encourages ‘Peaceful’ Protests Outside Justices’ Homes''

breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/10/watch-jen-psaki-says-white-house-encourages-peaceful-protests-outside-justices-homes

May 10, 2022 The White House / YouTube 0 seconds of 1 minute, 49 seconds Volume 90%

Joel B. Pollak 10 May 2022

4:45

''White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the Biden administration encourages “peaceful” protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that such protests aim to intimidate the judiciary and appear to be illegal.''

As Breitbart News reported Saturday, mobs of pro-abortion protesters gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court justices after the leak of a draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that would reverse Roe v. Wade (1973). Though the protests have been peaceful, they are virtually unprecedented as a way to pressure the highest court

— both directly and personally.

The scene in front of Chief Justice John Roberts’ house pic.twitter.com/vJVxxFoMNO

— Douglas Blair (@DouglasKBlair) May 7, 2022

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1507, makes protests outside the private residence of a federal judge a federal crime:

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.

On Friday, Psaki was asked about impending protests but declined to condemn or criticize them. On Monday, she issued a tweet denouncing violence but did not specifically mention the protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.

.@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) May 9, 2022

On Tuesday, during her daily White House briefing, Psaki was asked whether the president felt that “the demonstrations outside of, say, Justice Alito’s home — are those attempts to interfere or intimidate?” The reporter noted that the Department of Justice had responded quickly and harshly to protests outside the homes of school board members in recent months.

Psaki evaded the question, accusing critics of hypocrisy (emphasis added):

I think I said yesterday, but I’m happy to repeat, because I think it’s important for everybody to hear, that the president long-standing view has been that violence, threats, and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe, of course, in peaceful protest. What I do find is interesting, and I think many people have noted, is that there are voices on the right who have called out this protests that are happening while remaining silent for years on protests that have happened outside the homes of school board members, the Michigan Secretary of State, or including threats made to women seeking reproductive health care [sic], or even an insurrection [sic] against our capitol. So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes, and that’s the president’s position, but the silence is pretty deafening about all of the other intimidation that we’ve seen to a number of people.

Psaki appeared to conflate protests outside a place of business (an abortion clinic) with protests at private residences, and protests at the private residences of individual government officials with protests aiming to sway to a Supreme Court case.

When the reporter alluded to the federal law against protests outside judges’ homes, given the pending case, Psaki was evasive again: “Well, but I think that intimidation and protest, intimidation outside of the homes of school board members, the Michigan secretary of state, you know, intimidation and threats, against people seeking legal reproductive health care [sic] and against our capitol and American democracy, also warrant some outrage, and we haven’t really seen that.”

Notably, Psaki did not deny that protesting outside a private residence constitutes an attempt to “intimidate” the justices.

''18 U.S.C. § 1507 ⬇️''

7:12 PM · May 6, 2022·Twitter Web App

>>16420524

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1522715890910957576

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1522715882060804096

Why won't Press Secretary Jen Psaki condemn protesting at a Justice's private residence? After all, it is a crime! (18 U.S.C. Section 1507, Code of Virginia Section 18.2-419) 🧵

7:12 PM · May 6, 2022·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1533878640274206721

Many people assumed the man arrested with body armor & ammunition at the U.S. Capitol on Friday was some white far-right militant, but Jerome Felipe is a black/Latinx man who expressed leftist views, support for #BLM & a virulent hatred of Trump. Read: https://''patreon.com/posts/67431231''

2:29 PM · Jun 6, 2022·Twitter Web App