Chief Justice Roberts warns of threats to judges in year-end report

[j brown's body]

"Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.

The justice’s message follows a large jump in threats against judges and other public officials, as the nation’s polarized politics have taken an increasingly acrimonious turn. The U.S. Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022.

The Supreme Court has come in for harsh public criticism — and sometimes threats — in recent years, following contentious decisions and a string of controversies over the ethics of the justices."

Link

The right-wingers on the court overturning loning standing precedents for political reasons probably doesnt help their cause.

Meanwhile a flag brandished during the 1/6 insurrection displayed at justice's house suggests he's not too concerned about intimidation.

 

[OrphanSlug]

No matter how much we disagree with the courts, advocating for continued threats or upping the wick to violence should be universally spoken against.

 

[verrip1]

"Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.

The justice’s message follows a large jump in threats against judges and other public officials, as the nation’s polarized politics have taken an increasingly acrimonious turn. The U.S. Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022.

The Supreme Court has come in for harsh public criticism — and sometimes threats — in recent years, following contentious decisions and a string of controversies over the ethics of the justices."

Link

The right-wingers on the court overturning loning standing precedents for political reasons probably doesnt help their cause.

Meanwhile a flag brandished during the 1/6 insurrection displayed at justice's house suggests he's not too concerned about intimidation.

Well, it may be a new year, but in some minds, the butthurt of losing knows no calendar.

 

[Bodecea]

No matter how much we disagree with the courts, advocating for continued threats or upping the wick to violence should be universally spoken against.

Except by those excusing violence because of "lawfare" against their rapey felonious god.

 

[j brown's body]

No matter how much we disagree with the courts, advocating for continued threats or upping the wick to violence should be universally spoken against.

Considering Clarence Thomas, it seems like bribery might be more effective.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The right-wingers on the court overturning loning standing precedents for political reasons probably doesnt help their cause.

You started a thread about threats to judges and right out of the gate you are attempting to justify those threats by whining about SCOTUS justices passing down decisions you disagree with. Classic modern librul mindet.

 

[eman623]

Meanwhile a flag brandished during the 1/6 insurrection displayed at justice's house suggests he's not too concerned about intimidation.

Should he be concerned?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Except by those excusing violence because of "lawfare" against their rapey felonious god.

Go find one of them, you failed to pin that on me.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Considering Clarence Thomas, it seems like bribery might be more effective.

That is very true, what seems to work best for ensuring Thomas support is monetary gain for him.

 

[j brown's body]

Should he be concerned?

We should be concerned.

 

[eman623]

We should be concerned.

Why should I be concerned about intimidation?

 

[eohrnberger]

The OP's citation is paywalled, so I can't read anything of it beyond the very first paragraph or two for a moment before it's covered up by a subscription demand.

I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts was thinking about this incident when he wrote his report:

Armed man arrested near Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's home; made threats against the justice​

An armed man who allegedly made threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was arrested early Wednesday near the justice's suburban Washington, D.C. home, a court spokesperson and a local police official told USA TODAY.​

​

The suspect, identified in court records as Nicholas John Roske of California, was arrested about 1:50 a.m. and transported to a local Montgomery County, Maryland Police district after allegedly calling a local 911 dispatcher claiming to be armed, suicidal and that he had traveled to the area to "kill" a Supreme Court justice.​

​

Authorities later recovered a Glock pistol, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, hammer and crow bar from a pack he was carrying.​

​

Kavanaugh and his family were home at the time, according to a person familiar with the incident.​

Armed man arrested near Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's home; made threats against the justice

The suspect allegedly made threats against the justice as the high court mulls the fate of Roe v. Wade in a major abortion case.

www.usatoday.com

Threatening and intimidating judges is illegal as per federal law:

(1)Whoever—​

(A)

assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or​

(B)

threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).​

18 U.S. Code § 115 - Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

www.law.cornell.edu

as is

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.​

​

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.​

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Common Sense 1]

"Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.

The justice’s message follows a large jump in threats against judges and other public officials, as the nation’s polarized politics have taken an increasingly acrimonious turn. The U.S. Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022.

The Supreme Court has come in for harsh public criticism — and sometimes threats — in recent years, following contentious decisions and a string of controversies over the ethics of the justices."

Link

The right-wingers on the court overturning loning standing precedents for political reasons probably doesnt help their cause.

Meanwhile a flag brandished during the 1/6 insurrection displayed at justice's house suggests he's not too concerned about intimidation.

Read post #2!

 

[Slartibartfast]

The increased threats to dc circuit judges due to the j6 trials is likely a huge factor here.

 

[j brown's body]

The OP's citation is paywalled, so I can't read anything of it beyond the very first paragraph or two for a moment before it's covered up by a subscription demand.

I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts was thinking about this incident when he wrote his report:

​

I don't understand how a justice with a lifetime appointment can be intimidated by public protest.

They answer to virtually no one.

 

[Peter]

What kind of stupid idiot threatens a Judge?
It's about as stupid as trying to rob a police station and wondering why you failed misserably.

 

[Peter]

I don't understand how a justice with a lifetime appointment can be intimidated by public protest.

They answer to virtually no one.

Yep, a public protest is not a threat.
Firstly everyone involved in the protest is doing so openly and peacefully and secondly the Judge doesn't own the street and people have a right to convene and say what they like.

 

[j brown's body]

What kind of stupid idiot threatens a Judge?
It's about as stupid as trying to rob a police station and wondering why you failed misserably.

"The U.S. Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022."

I read that the judges who just affirmed Trump's sexual assault conviction left their names off the decision. Maybe because of this?

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't understand how a justice with a lifetime appointment can be intimidated by public protest.

I think anyone would be intimidated by a large group of people noisily protesting outside your private home in which your family were.

Regardless, it is explicitly against federal law, and the politicized Garland and his politicized DOJ stood by and did nothing, because of their politics, where the federal law clearly compelled them to act.

They answer to virtually no one.

 

[eohrnberger]

What kind of stupid idiot threatens a Judge?

The idiots you seek are cited in post #12.

It's about as stupid as trying to rob a police station and wondering why you failed misserably.

Agreed. Yet not a single thing happened to them.

 

[verrip1]

The increased threats to dc circuit judges due to the j6 trials is likely a huge factor here.

Your 'likely ... huge factor' looks like nothing more than undocumented speculation and blind partisanship to me.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Your 'likely ... huge factor' looks like nothing more than undocumented speculation and blind partisanship to me.

Given that this thread has been entirely that, but you chose my post, which does nothing but offer a counterpoint, shows your bias. Interesting.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No matter how much we disagree with the courts, advocating for continued threats or upping the wick to violence should be universally spoken against.

But.... but.... TTRRRUUUMMP!!!! MAGA!!!!!!! AAAUUUGH!!!!

Sorry, but true.
We had Democrat Senators and Congress members using veiled threats against SCOTUS judges.
No one on the right did that.

 

[verrip1]

Given that this thread has been entirely that, but you chose my post, which does nothing but offer a counterpoint, shows your bias. Interesting.

I see. I gave up 'I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you throw at me sticks back on you' in the third grade.

 

[trouble13]

Color me indifferent to the judges complaints. They have been failing to protect people from excessive prosecutions.