In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court discovered a woman’s right to abortion hidden in the unwritten “penumbras” of the Constitution. Prior to this judicial magic trick, abortion had been subject to laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives. At the time Roe was decided, thirty states outright prohibited abortion while a minority allowed it for limited purposes. But Roe effectively struck down all of those laws and, in an exercise of what dissenting Justice Byron White called “raw judicial power,” took the issue of abortion away from the state legislatures.
Having peremptorily overruled the will of the people as expressed through their elected state governments, Roe set off an angry national dispute that has ever since bitterly divided America.
Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sets forth a scholarly and compelling basis for overturning Roe as well as the later abortion rights case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Politico’s publication of a purloined copy of the draft has set off a firestorm of protest by abortion advocates who wrongly and hysterically equate overturning Roe and Casey with banning abortion. To the contrary, here in relevant part is what Alito’s draft actually says:
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” [Citation omitted] That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.
Imagine that. The draft opinion calls for allowing Americans to decide this vital and divisive issue through the legislative process. What a novel and radical concept.
Nevertheless, the abortion industry and its adherents have gone into full meltdown mode. Within hours of Politico’s publication of the draft opinion, agitated protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building. This required the erection of protective fences around the courthouse.
Then the home addresses of Justices Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Chief Justice Roberts were made public. This doxing was promptly followed by angry, shouting pro-choice demonstrators picketing the residences of Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts.
One protester, a 39-year-old female, was quoted as saying “The time for civility is over, man. Being polite doesn’t get you anywhere.” Others chanted “The whole world is watching!”; “We will not go back,” and “My body, my choice.”
The clear purpose of these protests at the Supreme Court building and the Justices’ homes was to influence, intimidate, and discourage the Court from overturning Roe.
And this is where things get interesting.
18 U.S.C. § 1507 provides, in relevant part, the following:
“Whoever … with the intent of influencing any judge … 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 … 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.”
Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 1503 provides, in relevant part, the following:
“Whoever … by any threatening … communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate or impede any … officer of any court of the United States … in the discharge of his duty … or by any threatening … communication … endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice” shall be fined or subject to “imprisonment for not more than 10 years” or both.
And then, there is 18 U.S.C. § 371 which makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any offense against the United States. If such persons conspired to violate § 1503, they face imprisonment for a term up to 5 years. For conspiracy to violate § 1507, they face imprisonment up to 1 year.
Based on what we know so far, it appears that the demonstrators, those who organized the demonstrations, the person(s) who doxed the Justices, the person(s) who provided Alito’s draft opinion to Politico, and the person(s) at Politico who published the opinion face arrest and prosecution under the foregoing statutes. All of them appear to have acted and conspired to influence, intimidate, and impede Justices of the Supreme Court as they adjudicate a case pending before them.
In short, these conspirators appear to have made history by endeavoring to obstruct justice at the highest possible level of the judiciary.
So, will these history-making events cause the Biden regime to task the woke warriors of the FBI with getting to the bottom of this conspiracy to obstruct justice at the Supreme Court? And, if given the job, will the FBI act in the manner of its January 6 Capitol Hill manhunts by mounting an aggressive and thorough round up of these miscreants?
Equally important, will the FBI use the same aggressive investigative technique that it used against Project Veritas by raiding Politico’s offices to learn who leaked the draft opinion?
And, if arrests are made, will the Justice Department demand that the defendants charged with this unprecedented and profoundly deleterious assault on the nation’s highest court be held without bail? Like those of the January 6 Capitol Hill defendants, will their trials be delayed for months or even years?
On Thursday of last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the publication of the Justices’ home addresses. She replied, “Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.”
She then added, “We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be.” (Emphasis added)
The next day, Psaki was asked by a reporter, “Does the president want protesters to influence Supreme Court justices so they uphold Roe?” She replied, “I wouldn’t say that he has a view on that” and then added that the president “believes in peaceful protests, but they’re [the Court] going to make the decisions they make, and we’re not going to prejudge a final decision.”
Was Psaki actually speaking for the mentally-challenged Biden or for the people who pull his strings? Either way, it would appear that the conspirators have nothing to fear from the Biden regime or its FBI and Justice Department.
After all, speaking through Psaki, the White House has explicitly approved the “peaceful protests” at the Supreme Court and the Justices’ homes despite the fact that those demonstrations are illegal since they clearly and unequivocally were undertaken to influence and intimidate the Court in the adjudication of a case pending before it.
Of course, this approval should come as no surprise since the Biden regime serves to promote the interests of the abortion industry and its advocates who comprise a favored constituency of the Democrat party.
So it is that, as a matter of simple political calculation, despite the historic and outrageous nature of the obstruction of justice at issue, it remains to be seen whether or not the Biden regime and its law enforcement apparatus will bring the conspirators to justice.
George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net and may be reached by email at email@example.com.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.