Judiciary must be independent and free from intimidation
The demonstrations in front of the homes of the conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, often pierced with calls for retribution, seek a particular outcome through threats and intimidation; they aim to manipulate and undermine confidence in one of the three co-equal branches of government; they invite anarchy to replace Respect for the Rule of Law; they welcome the demise of the republican democracy we cherish; and they are clearly illegal.
Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) states: “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.]”
For those who see this part of the United States Code as merely a pretentious annoyance or an insignificant outdated law that can and should be ignored, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78: “Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important to the idea of separation of powers.”
If January 6th violated where Pelosi and Schumer work, how much more of a violation is it to invade where Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas live? Are their houses no less sacred than the People’s House?
On May 4, Schumer took aim at Kavanaugh personally on the steps of the Supreme Court. The senior senator from New York told us about the whirlwind of hurt about to be visited on the justices – “they wouldn’t know what hit them.” Was this just empty rhetoric, hyperbole or inciteful speech on Schumer’s part. On June 8, Justice Kavanaugh came far too close to becoming another statistic. A lone gunman armed with a Glock 17 pistol and tactical knife was reportedly on his way to Kavanaugh’s home to, as some of the protesters termed it, “pick one off.” What if the “one” had turned out to be one of the justice’s children or his wife? Frightening, disgusting? To be sure. Unexpected? Given the tenor of the times, sadly no.
The court did indeed strike down Roe v. Wade, but consider the alternative: Had it not, haunting questions would always remain. Were the justices merely intimidated by the mob? What does that portend for the co-equal branch of government expressly constructed not to be bullied by public opinion, but to be bullied only by the Constitution? And, most important, what does it mean for the future of our republic?
One more chilling fact: Since 1979, seven federal judges (and/or members of their immediate families) have been assassinated or critically wounded by aggrieved former defendants or plaintiffs who stood before them and received a verdict not to their liking.
In the words of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy: “Certain other societies may respect the rule of force – we respect the Rule of Law.”
Mr. Ciervo is the former director of media relations for the New York State Bar Association.
Published, Albany Times Union, June 28, 2022