House Democrats are sitting on security for Supreme Court justices

The safety of Supreme Court justices should be a priority of the U.S. Congress following the arrest of an armed man near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home on Wednesday. The Senate recognized the need for increased security protocols in early May.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022 on May 5, 2022, and it passed with unanimous consent on May 9. The bill extends existing security protocols to the immediate family members of Supreme Court justices.

The House of Representatives has neglected to take any action on the bill. House Democrats bucked their Senate colleagues and came out against the bill.

I guess nancy is to busy chasing parents at school board meetings

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

Since it is illegal to protest outside the residence of a judge or juror, the protestors should be arrested.

MistyCee

@HoraceGreenley He wasnt really protesting, it seems, as much as moving in for the kill, like the judge in Wisconsin or the attack that killed Esther Salas' son.

Kananaugh is "special" for a lot of reasons, but this is really not unique.

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

@MistyCee Sadly, you are right

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@MistyCee Yeah, we all recall Justice Kavanaugh's rape trains, right?

MistyCee

@HoraceGreenley Yeah, I wish I wasn't. Left and right inside of society are all well and fine, and we can have differing ideas about the role of government, but I'm hoping that there's still a majority in this country that agrees that the government should still have some role in protecting us from internal threats, including assassination of public servants.

Given the Hang Mike Pence chants and the resistance to even looking into what happened, I'm not sure where the majority really is though.

At the very least, it seems like to many people are not paying attention or are being distracted by other stuff.

MistyCee

@sunsporter1649 Yeah, and I remember him promising political vegeance from the bench for it, too, which I thought, honestly should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice, except, well, they have no ethical principles other than their own consciences.

But that's another issue.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@MistyCee Well well well, a justice promising political justice for being slandered by the opposition on totally bogus bullschiff is not ok in your book, eh? Seems that disqualifies the 4 liberal justices, too, since they practice that daily in their rulings

MistyCee

@sunsporter1649 Nah, he pretty much promised revenge and not justice.

To be fair though, I think he's better than that and hasn't delivered yet on that really horrific moment.

Slade · 56-60, M

@MistyCee let's have a link for that since you are trying to excuse this dirtbag's attempt

MistyCee

@Slade excuse which dirtbag?

Schumer's comment, imo is not excusable.

I really don't buy that crap about two wrongs makes a right. Do you?

PS, I'm to lazy to look for the Kananaugh clip tonight, tbh.

graphite · 61-69, M

@HoraceGreenley FBI's too busy arresting a GOP gubernatorial candidate in Michigan.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@graphite And parents at school board meetings

AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M

@MistyCee watch your back is definitely a threat.
Dude yelled fire in a crowded theater then claimed he never said the word fire.

graphite · 61-69, M

@AthrillatheHunt The mayor of Chicago explicitly made a call to arms against the Supreme Court. And now that call is being answered.

AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M

@graphite think they’ll set up a January 6 committee to hold that person responsible for others actions ?
I’m joking of course .