Youngkin to Garland: Enforce the Law on SCOTUS Protests

CLAY: This is pretty crazy when you consider how aggressive, Buck, Merrick Garland, the AG, was responding to any minor criticism that ever existed that was raised related to school board meetings, all these different things. He’s been almost totally absent on this Supreme Court justice-protest related issue. And a lot of people have started asking, “Hey, given how many of these Supreme Court justices also live in Virginia, what’s the situation with Glenn Youngkin? What’s the situation, given the fact there’s a Republican governor there?” Well, Glenn Youngkin is now having to speak out and say, “Hey, Merrick Garland, how about you enforce federal law and protect the homes of Supreme Court justices?”

Here is Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin here, right here, cut 2, telling Merrick Garland, do your job.

GOV. YOUNGKIN: Well, the statute is incredibly clear. It basically says if you are parading or picketing in order to try to influence a judge, then it’s punishable with up to a year in prison. That sounds illegal to me, and I just ask the attorney general to enforce the law that’s on the books. If people want to demonstrate some place off away from their home, that’s their prerogative. But again, this is not a final ruling. It’s a draft ruling. And clearly these demonstrations are being pulled together to try to influence the final outcome. And that is prohibited based on federal statute.

BUCK: Just like at the southern border when Democrats have politics that conflicts with the law, Clay, all of a sudden the law is nullified. It doesn’t matter anymore. Now I understand people will say, “Well, he’s the governor,” but he’s referring to the federal statute —

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: — which specifically goes after intimidation of a federal judge — in this case, a Supreme Court justice or justices. The state statute, which we’ve also looked at here on the show, in Virginia, is more along the lines of a local nuisance ordinance where you can’t protest outside of someone’s home. It doesn’t have that judicial intimation component, so it’s probably — even if you enforced it — likely to be more along the lines of a fine, maybe a bench ticket to appear before a judge.

I get it; people want him to take — ’cause I’ve seen some conservatives who are upset at Youngkin over this. They wanted him to take a stronger line on this one, but that doesn’t mean we should forget that the attorney general and the FBI could say, “Hey, knock this stuff off, we’re gonna arrest people for judicial intimidation,” that actually has some teeth. That actually is a serious statute.

CLAY: Here is where I would just come down with the contents neutral policies in place. What do we think Merrick Garland would do if, let’s say, the Supreme Court had upheld the vaccine mandate of Joe Biden, forcing 84 million people who were employed to go get covid show — which, by the way, have minimal, at best, effectiveness for many people out there, right?

BUCK: Okay, I’m waiting for my seventh and then I know it’s really gonna kick in.

CLAY: That’s where it’s really gonna kick in. But, Buck, what do you think would happen if the liberal justices were being picketed and people were standing outside of their homes screaming at them? This would be a continuation of January 6th. It would be on the front page of every major newspaper — New York Times, Washington Post — and there would be a demand on MSNBC and on CNN that be done to stop these protesters outside of the homes of these Supreme Court justices that are trying to intimidate these justices for their decision.

And I feel like Merrick Garland might well act. I really do. Because it would allow him to continue, “The right wing is out of control in this country, we have to use the Department of Justice to help rein in their behavior.” But yet nothing happening right now at all with the same thing for these conservative judges.

BUCK: How does the deep state and how do Democrats use the power that they have within the federal bureaucracy — even under a Republican president, by the way — when they have political equities, you could say, at stake? Remember what they did, the special counsel? Of course, independent of operating — largely independent of. I mean, it is within technically the control of the DOJ, but it’s meant to be independent. Remember what they did to Roger Stone in his pajamas? They sent in a —

CLAY: Every media outlet in America was there to watch.

BUCK: Yeah. Well, they invited CNN to essentially live stream the arrest of Roger Stone. They sent a few dozen guys with long guns and flak vests in, and they made sure it was on TV. That is intimidation to show people, “Yeah, you step out of line, you do anything that we don’t like that has a political impact, we’ll send men with guns to your home at 4 a.m. to humiliate you and to throw the cuffs on you, instead of just…”

What would have happened if they called Roger Stone and said, “Look, you need to surrender yourself to the U.S. attorney’s office or to an AUSA tomorrow”? He would have been there. But they made an arrest to make a point, and they did it in a way to humiliate, degrade, and threaten. That’s how the Democrats play the game. Now, on the other side of it, are they gonna enforce a statute against clear judicial intimidation with this issue at stake? No, and I’ll tell you: I think there are some Democrats who worry… You know, I think Chuck Schumer feels like if he doesn’t sound like a wacko on this one and far leftist and everything else they’ll be picketing outside his home next.

CLAY: Well, he’s claiming that they already are, right? Did you hear his answer why you didn’t have a problem with it? Now, to be fair, Dick Durbin, one of the top Democrats in the Senate, said, no, they shouldn’t be protesting outside Supreme Court justices’ homes. But Schumer said, Buck, well, they already do it three or four days a week outside of my own home, and I’m thinking to myself, who in the world is protesting Chuck Schumer? Maybe left wingers for some reason?

BUCK: Apparently, I’m late on the uptake here. Apparently, they’re already there protesting Schumer. But that’s the point is that the wacko left here, they’re pulling all the levers they can on this issue, all over the place.