Was this incompetence by Attorney General Merrick Garland… or perhaps some bitterly sour grapes?

After all, if Barack Obama had had his way, and Mitch McConnell had not stood firm, then Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court right now. We should all be deeply grateful to both McConnell and Donald Trump that he is not, because Merrick Garland has proved to be a partisan hack of the worst kind. Remember how Garland decided that going after parents who DARED question their school boards by labeling them “domestic terrorists” was a stellar idea? And then he pretended he didn’t know what was going on? Yeah, let’s just say he is a leftist hack and call it a day.

But even a leftist hack should know what his job is, and shouldn’t need to be shamed into remembering it. That is, if he actually HAS any shame. The recent SCOTUS draft leak probably has Garland gnashing his teeth – not just because he would be among the leftist of the court, but because this is the job he might have had. But the second the reaction crossed the line into protests at the homes of justices? Garland should have been all over that, because it’s illegal.

But while protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.”

At issue is a statute enacted in 1950: Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code. The law states that it is illegal, “with the intent of influencing any judge,” to:
– picket or parade “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer”
– “or with such intent,” to resort “to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence”

Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University’s law school, said that the current protests at justices’ homes qualify under the statute and that the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional.”

“The statute would seem to apply both because … they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations,” Abu El-Haj said, “but also because the statute has a catchall ‘resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.’ ”

Law? What law? Why did it take two governors (Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin) to remind the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES what he’s supposed to be doing?

Today, @GovernorVA and I sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland calling on the Department of Justice to provide adequate resources to keep the Supreme Court justices and their families safe amid ongoing protests at their homes. pic.twitter.com/6D0bMGSp3q

— Governor Larry Hogan (@GovLarryHogan) May 11, 2022

Senators Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell also poked Garland to tell him, in writing, to do his job. Something must have finally sunk in – or the sour grape finally got swallowed – because Garland finally got off his ass and ordered the US Marshals onto the case.

“The Attorney General directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police,” the Justice Department said in a press release Wednesday.”

The statement did not add further details about the security measures, noting that Garland “continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justices.”

While we can all point and laugh at the protesters, especially the ones who showed up at Justice Barrett’s house…

There as many reporters as there are Handmaids. https://t.co/Baz75WqVpi

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 12, 2022

… we can also recognize that this is a dangerous situation that could get out of hand quickly, which is WHY it is illegal. Which leads us to only two answers regarding Merrick Garland and his significantly delayed response in actually ordering the US Marshals to provide security support to the SCOTUS justices. Either he is completely incompetent at his job, or he simply doesn’t care about the safety of the justices because of his own personal animus and political beliefs.

Or both. Both is also an answer.

Featured image: Merrick Garland in 2016, via Wikimedia Commons, cropped, public domain