On Sunday, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) stated that protestors who threaten violence could not be tolerated as some protestors have entered private neighborhoods to intimidate Supreme Court Justices at their homes.
“We can’t tolerate intimidation as a political tool It’s 1 thing to peacefully demonstrate & another to undermine institutions like SCOTUS+harass justices at home bc of a decision u might not like And ANYONE making threats of violence should be arrested & prosecuted,” Grassley tweeted.
We can’t tolerate intimidation as a political tool It’s 1 thing to peacefully demonstrate & another to undermine institutions like SCOTUS+harass justices at home bc of a decision u might not like And ANYONE making threats of violence should be arrested & prosecuted
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) May 8, 2022
Last week, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico, endangering the Justices as pro-abortion groups began protesting across the country.
In the document, Justice Samuel Alito writes that “Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito added. “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.”
In response to the leak, pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us — named for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — released maps showing the general locations of some of the Justices’ homes.
It should be noted that even Ginsburg opposed Roe v. Wade, arguing in a 1992 law review article that the decision was too large in scope and caused decades of controversy. Ginsburg wrote that the Texas law at the center of the case was one of the strictest in the country and could have been struck down with a much more limited ruling.
“Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” Ginsburg wrote at the time. “Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”
