Judging Freedom - Protesting Justices

Episode Date: May 9, 2022

#protests #scotusSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, May 9th, 2022. It's about 310 in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States. Everyone seems to know about the pilfered draft of a Supreme Court opinion involving abortion written by my college classmate, Justice Samuel Alito, and purportedly consented to by a majority of the Supreme Court. The draft is dated in February. It's likely that it's been changed by now. It was a draft. It was a work in progress. Somebody, probably somebody on the inside, wanted to scare off a wavering justice, if there is one, from the majority of five, probably leaked this. Or somebody on the inside who wanted to solidify a wavering justice, if there is one, probably released it.

But whoever it is has an agenda and it's reprehensible. It's egregiously wrong. It is profoundly evil to attempt to intimidate the court in this way or influence the outcome. Is it evil for people to protest in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices? Well, according to a federal statute, it is a crime to attempt to influence a jurist or a juror by protesting or demonstrating in front of their home. What my opinion? That statute is unconstitutional. Listen, I didn't like it when people protested in front of my home when I was on the court. I lived in a high-rise apartment building, but I was badgered and brutalized, not physically, but verbally, by people who disagreed with what I said. There were demonstrations outside the courthouse.

There were times when I needed a security escort to my car. That's part of the job. People who don't like what judges and jurors do have every right to protest. I am sorry this is happening, and I wish it wouldn't happen. And some of the members of the Supreme Court have young children who live at home with them, and they have spouses who live with them, who have nothing to do with all of this. But the government has the ability to keep them safe and secure, and it must use that ability without tampering the free speech rights of those who disagree. I don't know where this is going to go. I wish it hadn't happened this way. But in our system, it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the Constitution means and to say what the laws mean.

It is also the duty of the judiciary, since it's the anti-democratic branch of the government, to protect the lives, liberty, and property from the popular branches, the president of the Congress, that may try to interfere with them, or from the states. And the Supreme Court is the last stop in the judiciary. As Justice Robert Jackson, who sat in the 1940s and 50s once said, we're infallible only because we're final. We're not final because we're infallible. But at some point, the interpretation has to stop and we have to live with it whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree. Of course you can disagree. It doesn't mean you can't protest. Of course you can protest. You can't interfere with the

operation of the court, but you can protest to your heart's content. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.