White House Incites Democrat Goons To Attack Supreme Court Justices

18 US Code § 1503: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(b)The punishment for an offense under this section is—

(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and

(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 769; Pub. L. 97–291, § 4(c), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1253; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60016, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1974, 2147; Pub. L. 104–214, § 1(3), Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3017.)

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went to Morton’s Steakhouse in downtown Washington, D.C. for dinner Wednesday, but was spotted; Leftist protesters appeared, and the Justice had to leave through the back door.

A Morton’s representative then issued a statement saying that politics shouldn’t intrude on one’s “right to eat dinner,” but Biden’s press secretary disagreed. As far as Karine Jean-Pierre is concerned, those who dissent from the Left’s agenda have no right to enjoy dinner in peace.

Doocy on Brett Kavanaugh being forced out of a DC restaurant by protesters: "So these Justices, because protesters do not agree with an opinion… have no right to privacy?"

Jean-Pierre: "This is what a democracy is." pic.twitter.com/xaxH2Gq7Na

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) July 8, 2022

Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre: “So where’s the line? If these protesters can go to a Justice’s house, can they can go to a restaurant? Where is it that you don’t think it’s appropriate for a group of protesters to go?”

Jean-Pierre responded: “I just laid out—you asked me about intimidation, we condemn intimidation. We condemn any violence. And we’ve been very clear that is… it is like clear… it is a clear definition of what violence is and what intimidation is. Peaceful protest, people should be allowed to be able to do that.”

Not satisfied, Doocy pursued the matter: “In a restaurant?” Jean-Pierre replied: “If it’s outside of a restaurant, if it’s peaceful, for sure.” Doocy, shocked, said: “Really?,” whereupon Jean-Pierre reiterated: “Peaceful protests.”

Doocy then drew the obvious conclusion: “So these justices, because protesters do not agree with an opinion that they signed on to have no right to privacy, is what you’re saying.”

Jean-Pierre’s coherence began to elude her, as she sputtered: “Peter, this is… this is… people have the right… this is what a democracy is.” Doocy asked: “Do people have the right to privacy?” The press secretary replied: “Of course, people have a right to privacy. But people also have a right to be able to protest peacefully. It’s the intimidation and the violence that we condemn.”

Yet this plainly was intimidation, and Jean-Pierre was fine with it. The Leftist rag Politico was likewise cheered at the prospect of Leftist thugs forcing Kavanaugh to flee Morton’s, heading its notice of the incident “Happy Friday” and adding: “Thanks for reading Playbook. Drop us a line with your best constitutional argument for the right to eat dinner.” Politico then provided email addresses for three of its “journalists”: Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels, and Ryan Lizza.”

The “constitutional argument for the right to eat dinner” business comes from Morton’s response to the incident, which began, Politico said, when “D.C. protesters targeting the conservative Supreme Court justices who signed onto the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion got a tip that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining at Morton’s downtown D.C. location. Protesters soon showed up out front, called the manager to tell him to kick Kavanaugh out and later tweeted that the justice was forced to exit through the rear of the restaurant.” Note the manipulative wording: Politico assumes that there is a “constitutional right to abortion” that was overturned, when there never actually was such a right, and the claim that there was never had any justification in the Constitution at all. This is how the Leftist media attempts to control the narrative.

Politico went farther than that, sneering at Kavanaugh despite the fact that he was the victim in the incident. If Sonia Sotomayor had been the Justice who was thus harassed, would Politico’s coverage have been different? Like night and day. But in this case, Politico continued, “Daniel Lippman looked into the incident for us and confirmed that account. While the court had no official comment on Kavanaugh’s behalf and a person familiar with the situation said he did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert, Morton’s was outraged about the incident.” And here is where the real fun began: “A rep for the chain steakhouse sent Lippman this statement: ‘Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

Was the Morton’s rep making a statement about constitutional rights? Of course not. He or she was making a statement about common decency, a virtue that is in alarmingly short supply among Leftists. The reaction from Karine Jean-Pierre, as well as Politico, shows that the Left is embracing totalitarianism at a rapid clip, and that all too many Leftists are just fine with the idea that if you hold political opinions that they deem unacceptable, you should be harassed and hounded anywhere and everywhere, presumably until you’re simply too exhausted to continue to dissent from their agenda. Their totalitarian is showing, without concealment or apology.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 25 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

---