[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION]
AG Merrick Garland Refuses to Enforce Laws Protecting SCOTUS
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rland-refuses-enforce-laws-protecting-scotus/
JOHN NOLTE 11 May 2022
The pro-baby-slaughtering protests, chanting, and screaming outside the homes of six Supreme Court justices violate federal law, and Joe Biden’s attorney general refuses to enforce that law.
Here it is in black and white: 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.
The law is strikingly clear. It is a crime to protest “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge” with “the intent of influencing any judge.”
And yet, even though this is the law, hundreds of pro-abortion loons are flagrantly violating this law by doing exactly that: protesting outside the residences of six justices in the hopes of persuading them to rule a certain way.
Now, it is a perfectly valid position to oppose this law, to see it as a violation of the First Amendment, to believe it is unconstitutional. As long as the protests are peaceful, why should We the People be restricted in our protests? It’s also possible that the ban on protesting near courthouses is unconstitutional, but that the ban on protesting near someone’s house in a residential neighborhood is constitutional. The Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech.
What’s more, what is wrong with trying to influence a judge’s ruling?
But that’s not the point here…
The point is that the law is the law is the law, and it is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s sworn duty to uphold federal law, and he is not doing that. Why? Well, does anyone doubt that Garland and the lawless White House that appointed him would like nothing more than to see the endless and demonic slaughter of innocent, unborn children continue?
Garland is pro-abortion. That’s why he’s not enforcing the law. This has nothing to do with principle. If it were pro-life protesters out there, you can bet Garland would have already rounded them up and thrown away the key.
Once again, it is plain to see that in this country, there is one law for people on the left and another for people on the right.
Nevertheless, according to the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws. The executive branch, which Garland is part of, enforces that law. Period. End of story. By not enforcing the law, Garland is violating his constitutional oath. It’s not up to him to decide which laws he will and won’t enforce. He is also setting a terrible precedent by allowing this brazen lawbreaking to continue. What’s to stop future attorneys general from doing the same?
It comes down to this… If Garland disagrees with a law, the most effective way to see that law overturned is to enforce it. Arrests could result in court challenges that kill the law.
Some people blame Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) for not enforcing the law. Well, unless the feds deputize the local police force, a state governor cannot enforce federal law. That’s up to federal law enforcement, which Merrick Garland oversees.
