Why won’t the DOJ do its job? It is a violation of a federal statute to protest outside of the Supreme Court justices’ homes, yet protests regularly happen. Ever since the decision on Dobbs was leaked, indicating that Roe v Wade would be overturned, there have been protests in the neighborhoods of conservative Supreme Court justices. Attorney General Merrick Garland is a Democrat. Is it a partisan politics thing? If so, Garland is a petty and spiteful man. If not, he is inept and incompetent. There is no middle ground here. It’s one or the other.

The reason the Supreme Court is asking for more money to protect the justices is that Garland is not doing his job. He doesn’t call for the arrest of protesters. So, the Court is asking Congress to increase security funding. The Court requests $5,897.00 for the “expansion of protective activities” and an additional increase of $585,000 for a new IT security position in cybersecurity, software development, and network engineering.

“This request would expand security activities conducted by Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices,” the protective activities request says, before specifically citing the presence of threats to the justices.

“On-going threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection,” the request continues. “Additional funding would provide for contract positions, eventually transitioning to full-time employees, that will augment capabilities of the Supreme Court police force and allow it to accomplish its protective mission.”

Protests continue in the neighborhoods of the conservative justices. Governor Youngkin in Virginia and former Governor Hogan in Maryland asked the attorney general to enforce 18 U.S. Code 1507. No dice.

Far-left protestors are back at Amy Coney Barrett’s home demonstrating in violation of 18 U.S. code 1507 pic.twitter.com/5r0D2cpryd

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) January 29, 2023

Noticeably, the protesters are all covering their faces this time (unlike last Sunday at Justice Kavanaugh’s)

Not too many police here in Fairfax this afternoon. We think two or three cops and two US Marshals. https://t.co/qfy2tayIOn

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) January 29, 2023

It’s business as usual for the protesters. The protests aren’t very big – they look to include less than 20 people – so that should be fairly easy for law enforcement to contain. All it takes, though, is one violent wacko and it can all go south quickly. Remember the weapons the unbalanced man in front of Justice Kavanaugh’s house carried in his backpack. People are unhinged and the mentally ill are susceptible to a break. Fortunately, nothing bad has happened other than threats. In today’s political atmosphere, it is impossible to not wait for the other shoe to drop. Threat assessments show the threats continue to grow.

The judiciary, in a fiscal 2024 budget document, said “ongoing threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection” for the justices by the Supreme Court police.

More money for the physical security of the Supreme Court is the result of a “comprehensive review and recommendations” from the US Army Corps of Engineers and “needed to reinforce the building,” the judiciary said.

On March 1, during a congressional hearing, Senator Ted Cruz asked Attorney General Garland, “Is it a federal crime to protest outside of a judge’s home with the intent of influencing that judge as to a pending case?” Garland answered, “The answer to that is yes.” Yet, nothing has changed.

Ted Cruz: “Is it a federal crime to protest outside of a judge’s home with the intent of influencing that judge as to a pending case?”

AG Garland: “The answer to that is yes.” pic.twitter.com/zzff4UgnvJ

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) March 1, 2023

It’s up to Congress to okay the security funding increase. I don’t expect that there will be any problem with that, especially after the high-profile attack of Paul Pelosi and the man arrested in front of Kavanaugh’s house who traveled across the country to harm him. I do wonder, though, if the liberal justices were the ones being threatened and protested, would Garland have made arrests and stopped the protests in residential areas by now?