WASHINGTON (AP) — With security threats to Supreme Court justices still fresh memories, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday praised programs that protect judges, saying that “we must support judges by ensuring their safety.”
Roberts and other conservative Supreme Court justices were the subject of protests, some at their homes, after the May leak of the court’s decision that ultimately stripped away constitutional protections for abortion. Justice Samuel Alito has said that the leak made conservative justices “targets for assassination.” And in June, a man carrying a gun, knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house after threatening to kill the justice, whose vote was key to overturning the court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
Roberts, writing in an annual year-end report about the federal judiciary, did not specifically mention the abortion decision, but the case and the reaction to it seemed clearly on his mind.
“Judicial opinions speak for themselves, and there is no obligation in our free country to agree with them. Indeed, we judges frequently dissent — sometimes strongly — from our colleagues’ opinions, and we explain why in public writings about the cases before us,” Roberts wrote.
Polls following the abortion decision show public trust in the court is at historic lows. And two of Roberts’ liberal colleagues who dissented in the abortion case, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, have said the court needs to be concerned about overturning precedent and appearing political.
After the leak and threat to Kavanaugh, lawmakers passed legislation increasing security protection for the justices and their families. Separately, in December, lawmakers passed legislation protecting the personal information of federal judges including their addresses.
The law is named for the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, 20-year-old Daniel Anderl, who was killed at the family’s New Jersey home by a man who previously had a case before her.
Roberts thanked members of Congress “who are attending to judicial security needs.” And he said programs that protect judges are “essential to run a system of courts.”
In writing about judicial security, Roberts told the story of Judge Ronald N. Davies, who in September 1957 ordered the integration of Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas. Davies’ decision followed the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that segregated schools were unconstitutional and rejected Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus’ attempt to stop school integration.
Davies “was physically threatened for following the law,” but the judge was “uncowed,” Roberts said.
“A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear. The events of Little Rock teach about the importance of rule by law instead of by mob,” he wrote.
Roberts noted that officials are currently working to replicate the courtroom Davies presided over in 1957. Roberts said the judge’s bench used by Davies and other artifacts from the courtroom have been preserved and will be installed in the re-created courtroom in a federal courthouse in Little Rock “so that these important artifacts will be used to hold court once again.”
Before that happens, however, the judge’s bench will be on display as part of an exhibit at the Supreme Court beginning in the fall and for the next several years, he said.
“The exhibit will introduce visitors to how the system of federal courts works, to the history of racial segregation and desegregation in our country, and to Thurgood Marshall’s towering contributions as an advocate,” Roberts said. Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education, became the Supreme Court’s first Black justice in 1967.
The Supreme Court is still grappling with complicated issues involving race. Two cases this term deal with affirmative action, and the court’s conservative majority is expected to use them to reverse decades of decisions that allow colleges to take account of race in admissions. In another case, the justices could weaken the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement.
The justices will hear their first arguments of 2023 on Jan. 9.
© 2022 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
We found something to agree on.
BUT why did he wait till NOW< to speak out?
“When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny”. Thomas Jefferson
When Supreme Court Justices fear the people, It’s probably because they have ruled in freedom denying ways that make THE PEOPLE fear, or have refused to rule and THE PEOPLE are left with only fear and uncertainty. All fear is, is the unknown. If this feckless fearful Roberts led court clearly and forcefully acted to enforce the laws that protect THE PEOPLE and police hired to protect them, everyone would know where they stand, not just THE PEOPLE and states who have D.A.s that actually prosecute and jail people who break our laws already on the books put there to protect them. Why this court has not addressed our current government failures in this area, particularly drug dealer led unvetted immigration that is killing our kids by the hundreds of thousands makes one wonder why we even need this current Supreme Court, who had they proactively protected THE PEOPLE, would have no fear of them or the tyranny they have allowed to run loose unopposed. Where there is no personal morality or human integrity, there is no safety. Enter no fault divorces, unrestricted abortions, total gender confusions, attempts to legislate morality, separation of God (Not Church) from state, nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, creating sanctioning of the new religion of failing secular socialism.
When Supreme Court Justices fear the people, It’s probably because they have ruled in freedom denying ways that make THE PEOPLE fear, or have refused to rule and THE PEOPLE are left with only fear and uncertainty.
The ruling that brought on the assassination attempt, the endless picketing of the homes of the justices and the never ending threats was Roe vs Wade. So you are saying that ruling Roe vs Wade unconstitutional and sending abortion back to the states was denying freedom.
The problem here was failure of the Biden administration, Mayor Bowser and the DC PD to enforce the law and bring the out-of-control protesters under control. Yes, the people have a right to protest but it is not unlimited.
I often disagree with Roberts but not this time. If judges fear for their lives they will not be able to make unbiased decisions. Agree with the decision or not the justices must be protected or our society will be even more lawless than it has already become.
I am not saying and did not say anything about Roe v Wade which by sending it back to the states was one of the first Great Constitutional judicial corrections of this century, but something Roberts sat on his hands on for years without acting on, and when he did act on things like Obamacare, reversing what the Democrats said was not a tax, but he did call it a tax to ram it through and empty our treasury in bold social redistribution of our national wealth and one of the greatest defeaters of the concept of individual accountability for Self-government where THE PEOPLE, not the Government take responsibility for their own lives individually, which is the only way countries and Americans can collectively earn the right to national Self-government. This Supreme court has improved but still sits on its hands while our nation gets invaded with foreign people, foreign ideas, and foreign drugs that kill legal citizens by the hundreds of thousands. Their vapid lack of reaction has been part of the problem and only recently in small baby steps began to become part of the solution. This court needs to take large leaps for American mankind and proactively rule to kill these nation killing social experiments in the cradle, not wait until they mature in record broken laws and record breaking national deficits. No innocence here in creating/allowing of the very fear that threatens themselves.
I am not saying and did not say anything about Roe v Wade
Yes, that was my point. The Roe v Wade decision was the reason for the harassment, the threats and the assassination attempt. Long rant, missed point.
BUT are not there ALREADY EXISTING LAWS< about threatening judges?? SO why do we therefore need MORE laws? ENFORCE THE ONES we already have!
Maybe now SCOTUS will understand that the 2nd Amendment is unequivocally applicable to all citizens.