It Shouldn’t Have To

The Wall Street Journal house opinion subheadline tells the tale:

The Supreme Court asks for action under laws against picketing homes.

Federal law prohibits protests in front of demonstrations outside judges’ homes with a view to influencing their rulings, or to harass them for rulings rendered.

Virginia State law

bans picketing private residences or assembling to “disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home.”

Maryland has a similar law that

prohibits picketing “in front of or adjacent to any private residence.”

Critics insist that the Federal law is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. Others claim that the Virginia and Maryland laws aren’t content neutral—both allow labor dispute pickets—and so are similarly unenforceable.

The claims are risible. These are the laws on the books, and no court has yet ruled on their constitutionality. Until that happens—and it could, were some backbone found somewhere and the laws actually enforced and subsequently challenged—they are the law of the land. They must be enforced.

Full stop.

DoJ’s Progressive-Democrat Attorney General Merrick Garland’s blatant refusal to enforce the Federal law is clear, present, and more than ample grounds for impeaching him for his deliberate refusal to perform his duties.

The Maryland and Virginia Governors’ hesitance is cowardice and should be an item of consideration at the ballot box when the time comes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *