Daily Caller News Foundation
Exposing The Truth One Story At A Time

US

Liberals Melt Down Over Bipartisan SCOTUS Security Protection Bill

No featured image available

Laurel Duggan
May 10, 2022 12:32 PM ET
  • The Senate moved to quickly enhance security measures for the families of Supreme Court justices Monday as protesters descended on their private homes and published their home addresses online.
  • Liberals complained about the enhanced security on Twitter, which they viewed as wrongly prioritizing the Court when lawmakers should have been focusing on abortion rights. 
  • “This is such an insult to the untold number of people who’ve face violence and harassment over the past several decades just trying to obtain abortions, these Senators are all just fucking sick in the head,” said Jason Linkins, deputy editor of The New Republic.

Liberals melted down on Twitter in response to a Monday bipartisan effort in the Senate to enhance security for the families of Supreme Court justices.

Senators quickly passed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, which extends police protection to justices’ families, on Monday as pro-abortion protesters gathered in front of justices’ homes to protest a leaked draft opinion revealing that justices would likely overturn Roe v. Wade. Liberals condemned the move as a distraction from the issue of abortion rights.

“This is such an insult to the untold number of people who’ve face violence and harassment over the past several decades just trying to obtain abortions, these Senators are all just fucking sick in the head,” wrote Jason Linkins, deputy editor of The New Republic.

“So this bill is just zipping through the gov’t, making it more difficult to protest Supreme Court justices where they live. they can reach into our homes to control our bodily autonomy but we can’t show up at their gates to say hey what the fuck,” wrote Jes Skolnik, a writer and member of Trans Journalists Association.

Adam Serwer, a writer for The Atlantic, suggested Democrats who helped justices get improved security had an issue with the public backlash against Roe being overturned, a phenomenon that would presumably help their party.

“One problem with the idea that Democrats will benefit from a backlash to Roe being overturned is that the party leadership don’t seem to like the idea of there being a backlash to Roe being overturned,” he wrote. He clarified that he did not object to the increased security measures for justices.

Max Berger, who formerly worked for the liberal political action committee Justice Democrats, complained that the government could provide justices security but couldn’t pass COVID-19 aid.

“Our government can’t pass COVID aid or defend a right which 70% of Americans support, but it can do symbolic measures to affirm the legitimacy of an increasingly corrupt and anti-democratic minority,” he said.

Steven Thrasher, a Northwestern University professor, also complained about the role of Supreme Court security in the budgeting process.

“Budgets are priorities. There’s always money for war, and there is rapid money for the discomfort for the the ruling class,” he said. “If the Senate can’t pass $ for Covid or climate change but can for SCOTUS after *one* peaceful protest, get ready for decades of authoritarian rule.”

Author Martha Brockenbrough appeared to sarcastically applaud the move for keeping Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, safe.

“Super glad we’re keeping that extremely sane and responsible and not at all cult-prone Ginni Thomas safe,” she wrote.

“Strange to suddenly care about the health and safety of families!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” said Broti Gupta, a Simpsons writer.

Musician Courtney Jay condemned Democrats who had supported the safety measures for justices.

“[F]uck you too, democrats,” she said.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].