Biden encourages people to violate the law by protesting at justices’ homes

With Democrats and their radical-activist base continuing to seethe after the criminal leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade’s concoction of a supposedly constitutional right to kill the unborn, White House press secretary Jen Psaki made this statement Tuesday, on behalf of President Biden:

“I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date, and we certainly do continue to encourage that, outside judges’ homes, and that’s the president’s position.”

The best interpretation of this astonishing assertion is that Biden wants people who choose to protest outside the homes of Supreme Court justices to remain peaceful, but is not recommending that they conduct such protests.

A more rational interpretation is that the president is encouraging people to violate federal law by protesting at Supreme Court justices’ homes, and that he views this as appropriate as long as the protesters do not resort to violence. This interpretation accounts for Biden’s constitutional duties to execute the laws faithfully and to protect both the security of the courts and the administration of justice,

To be clear, it is a criminal offense to picket or parade near a residence of a federal judge for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a judicial proceeding. It is not a defense that the behavior is nonviolent. When a statutory crime does not necessarily involve forcible conduct, the fact that people commit it “peacefully” is irrelevant.

Parading and picketing are not inherently violent acts. They are acts of political pressure. Court cases are supposed to be decided based on law, not political pressure. Therefore, even peaceful protesting at the homes of judges undermines the institution of the judiciary, the integrity of judicial proceedings, and the administration of justice, because to put political pressure of any kind on a judge in order to influence a ruling obstructs justice.

This is common sense. It would, perhaps, be easier to understand if we consider witnesses and jurors in trials — they are covered by the same statute that protects judges. If protesters went to the residence of a witness or juror and simply stared angrily without engaging in violence, everyone would understand that the purpose was intimidation and corrupt influence. The crowd would be trying to get the witness to testify as the protesters wished, regardless of the truth; or to get the juror to reach the verdict the protesters wanted, regardless of what the evidence showed.

Obviously, this would obstruct justice. It would not be a defense that the crowd of protesters did not resort to forcible measures.

Under the circumstances, Biden is encouraging this lawlessness. He is the chief executive responsible for seeing that the laws are enforced and that government institutions and officials are able to function without interference. Unlike the rest of us, who do not have such duties and thus can sit back passively, the president of the United States has a positive obligation to take preventive action. If his administration does not protect the justices from illegal intrusions, nobody else is in a position to do it under the color of federal law. Ergo, Biden is encouraging lawlessness: It could not happen if he acted to prevent it, yet he refuses to do that.

Right now, the Biden Justice Department is actively prosecuting scores of people for parading at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The fact that some of those protesters — unlike others who were there that day — did not commit any violent acts has made no difference to prosecutors and the FBI. The Biden administration has expended considerable effort and public resources to identify and apprehend these demonstrators throughout the country.

Biden’s message was not that Jan. 6 protesters should be left alone as long as they acted peacefully. It was that their mere presence on federally restricted territory violated the law. It was that their mere presence warranted prosecution because it created a potential for great harm, and because the administration had a duty to protect Congress.

Biden’s contradictory stance now is an unabashed politicization of law-enforcement: Pro-Trump protesters must be punished, but pro-abortion protesters have immunity— indeed, their criminality is to be portrayed as righteous “passion.”

The president’s promotion of lawlessness is not merely shameful; it is a position he is taking specifically to subvert the justice system. That is disqualifying.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, a Fox News contributor and the author of several books, including “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

Tags abortion; Roe v. Wade; supreme court Biden Jan. 6 protests Jen Psaki pro-choice protests Supreme Court justices

The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation. We invite you to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter.

Most Popular

Load more

Video

See all Video