Democrats inciting more "mostly peaceful" violence, escalate by doxxing, stalking, proposing to murder judges, harassing churches, etc... https://nypost.com/2022/05/06/abortion-protests-biden-wont-condemn-at-doxxed... https://teaparty.org/ruth-sent-us-leftists-finally-cross-the-threshold-show-... https://timcast.com/news/a-pro-abortion-group-is-planning-to-disrupt-catholi... https://www.ruthsent.us/ Funny how the retarded Left fails to consider that their political opponents will just roll out the same Assassination Politics game against them in turn... https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1522230135562326016 https://nitter.eu/pic/media%2FFSAMPZmWYAEe9_H.jpg " @simongwynn - Interesting real life trolley problem in America now. If you had the chance to kill Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the two oldest right wing Supreme Court judges, should you do it while Biden can get his nominees to replace them confirmed? - It's interesting as an abstract question but becomes a real conundrum if, say, you're terminally ill and have little to lose yourself, but know that it could save many women's lives in the future. - I've removed my recent two tweets about the US Supreme Court as on reflection they're obviously pretty irresponsible, though I don't think they would be against Twitter's TOS. FYI I don't endorse murdering anyone, but don't think there's anything wrong with thought experiments. Twitter is not often a good place for them, however. "

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/10/insurrection-or-advocacy-chicago-mayor... Actual Insurrection: Leftist Dyke Chicago Mayor Urges 'Call To Arms' Over Supreme Court "Not satisfied with the murders just in her own city, Mayor Lightfoot calls for more violence across the country." Goldfish face here wants a civil war. — John 1776 Cardillo (@johncardillo)

Supreme "Stench": How Politics Replaced Principle In The High Court https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/05/supreme-stench-how-politics-replaced-p... Below is my column in USA Today on the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. I previously discussed the “stench” raised by Justice Sotomayor and how it smelled like mendacity to blame her three new colleagues. Now that stench is overwhelming not only due to the intentional leaking of the opinion but the defense of the leaker by many in the press. The leaker is being called “brave” and a “hero” by many on the left. While denouncing what they see as the Court abandoning its principles, they are celebrating someone who violated every ethical and professional principle in leaking this draft opinion. Here is the column: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor surprised many court watchers in December during the oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization when she complained about the “stench” of politics pervading the case over abortion rights. The stench became overwhelming Monday night when Politico published a leaked copy of a working draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs. Chief Justice John Roberts verified the draft’s authenticity Tuesday and launched an investigation. The leak in the abortion case was a despicable act that shocked even the most cynical in Washington. The draft opinion, if left unchanged, would sweep away Roe v. Wade and decades of precedent. The draft’s author, Justice Samuel Alito, declares, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” This draft and the alignment of justices can change. What will not change is that stench. The court has lost a type of institutional innocence in maintaining confidentiality through decades of hard-fought and heated legal disputes. Court was island of confidentiality Even in a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the Supreme Court has long been an island of integrity and confidentiality. It was an inviolate rule that members and clerks do not leak either the deliberations or decisions of the court. Indeed, for those of us who have covered and written about the nation’s highest court for decades, we never thought this day would come. This was clearly a politically calculated act by someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause. There is no obvious reason to leak other than to unleash outside pressure on the court and to try to push Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade. If that was the purpose, it seems quickly realized as figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., used the leak to call for not just the passage of the federal law but for killing the filibuster as well: “Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.” It is doubtful the leaker expected to coerce a change in votes on the court. It is certainly true that a tentative opinion can change dramatically over the countless drafts sent between chambers. It is common for majority opinions to become dissents or to fracture in a plurality decision as justices work through the issues. However, this leak makes such second thoughts less likely, not more. According to Politico’s reporting, Alito was initially joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Any change in the vote would now leave the impression that the court could be manipulated through outside pressure. Indeed, if Roberts was on the fence, this leak, if anything, might push him back toward the right of the court. Faced with such a raw political act, justices are more likely to dig in than abandon their initial votes. This leak was a move directed at Congress and the midterm elections. In some ways, that makes it even worse. Politics is the forbidden fruit of judicial ethics. Yet it is a temptation that has been resisted through the years despite the Supreme Court being located across the street from Congress in the middle of a city where politics is the primary industry. Injection of politics Sotomayor’s complaint of the “stench” of politics in December was viewed by some of us as a departure from the decorum of the court. She was referring to how the three new members were widely viewed as having been nominated to reverse Roe and other cases by sheer force of numbers. It was itself the injection of politics into the deliberations. Before the argument, Sotomayor shocked many in calling upon students to campaign against abortion laws in anticipation of pending abortion cases before the court. She declared in October, “You know, I can’t change Texas’ law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.” It now appears that someone with access to internal deliberations of the court decided to find a way to be an instrument of change in a way that will leave a stench for many years to come. Few of us believe that any of the justices would countenance such an unethical act. The investigation instead will focus on the judicial clerks and staff of the court – an investigation that will shatter the court’s collegial and sheltered culture. One thing is now certain. The court will never be the same. There is a loss of innocence in all of this, a realization that the court is no longer immune from politics. It is a moment like the one described by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer at the realization of the atomic bomb: “In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, (we) have known sin; and this is a knowledge which (we) cannot lose.”

No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury In Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/04/no-conservative-justices-did-not-commi... The response to the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a torrent of outrage on the left. While many are calling for marches and sweeping new legislation, some are focused on calling out the justices in the majority for alleged “perjury” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, particularly Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. In reality, they did not lie in testimony in referencing Roe as established precedent. The suggestion of perjury is utter nonsense. In the draft opinion written by Justice Alito declares “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) publicly decried what she claimed were false or misleading answers on Roe by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh. No less a legal figure as Stephen Colbert declared “They knew, that if they were honest, they wouldn’t get the job. So they lied, which I think is perjury. But what do I know? I’m no Supreme Court justice, I’m not a good enough liar.” In recent hearings, some of us have criticized Democratic members in demanding assurances on how nominees would vote on particular cases or issues. However, both Democratic and Republican nominees have largely stuck to rote responses on Roe and other cases to refuse to make such commitment. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously insisted, there would be “no forecasts, no hints.” The problem is that politicians often display a type of selective auditory attention problem: they hear what they want to hear. Indeed, confirmation hearings are highly choreographed on both sides. Each senator seeks to secure a thirty-second clip showing that he or she secured assurances or trashed a nominee. For pro-choice senators like Sen. Collins, it is essential to have some answer that would support a claim that, despite seemingly antagonistic judicial philosophical views, a nominee would not likely overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Notably, however, these same senators have supported the Ginsburg Rule, which is customarily cited to refuse to make promises or predictions on votes. Indeed, I have long been a critic of the rule because it is used to refuse to even discuss judicial philosophy. So nominees now just restate elementary points of judging without saying anything of substance. Most of those crying “perjury” do not cite the specific perjurious language. Take Alito. Many of us said when Alito was nominated that he was presumptively opposed to the logic of Roe. After all, in 1985, Alto wrote as a Justice Department lawyer that the Constitution does not contain a right protecting abortions. However, appearances had to be observed. The late Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), asked him if he agreed with that statement today and Alito responded in classic confirmation nonspeak. He first repeated the facts (by noting that he was a Justice Department attorney at the time) and then went rote: “Today if the issue were to come before me. The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, I would approach that question with an open mind.” That says absolutely nothing but how every jurist approaches case precedent. You begin with the touchstone of stare decisis and the preference for preserving precedent. You then approach the countervailing question with “an open mind.” When Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged in a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision–sometimes on the merits; sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis. And I believe when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis. For at least two reasons… That again says nothing. Indeed, it was decided in 1973 and that is a long time ago. Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 58 years before it was overturned in 1958. It was also supported by stare decisis but it did not matter. He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases. Then came Gorsuch. I testified in the Gorsuch hearing and he was widely viewed as a Roe skeptic. After all, he wrote a book that declared the “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” When asked about that statement in the context of Roe, Gorsuch responded: “Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, Gorsuch stated another truism: “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted that Roe is the established precedent. That is about as earthshaking as saying he accepts that the Supreme Court sits in Washington. Likewise, then-senator Al Franken asked if Gorsuch he viewed Roe as “settled law.” Again, that is like asking for the location of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared “It is absolutely settled law.” Then came Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh also stated the obvious in calling Roe “important precedent” and noting that the Court strives to preserve precedent. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.), he again said that such cases are “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis” and “one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.” Kavanaugh succeeded in repeating nothing but verbal nullities. The one exception to this pattern of confirmation nonspeak was Barrett. At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.). What is most striking about these claims that the justices lied is that most of these critics insisted during their confirmations that they were clearly antagonistic toward Roe. Nothing that they said changed any minds on their judicial philosophy as hostile to the logic of Roe. Notably, liberal nominees have used the same language about cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting gun rights. They acknowledge that it is a settled precedent but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. Indeed, they have voted to limit or overturn past cases with which they disagree. No one called for perjury prosecutions or denounced them as liars. None of this is likely to matter in the echo-chambered news today, particularly with the approaching midterm elections. That is why Bismarck warned that “people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”

Violent left... "When The Mob Is Right": Georgetown Law Prof Supports "Aggressive" Protests At Homes Of Justices https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-profes... Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.” For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court. While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes. Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media. We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.” Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, Mystal declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.” Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet). That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial. The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter. In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers. For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can be rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.

Supreme Court Demands Cellphone Records And Affidavits From Clerks In Leak Investigation https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/31/supreme-court-reportedly-to-demand-cel... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/06/the-license-to-leak-how-years-of-attac... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/09/the-only-one-that-makes-sense-nprs-tot... The Supreme Court appears to be ratcheting up its investigation into the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. According to CNN, the Court is asking clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits. Some of us have been surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision not to ask for assistance from the FBI, which is the world’s leading law enforcement agency on computer and forensic investigations. Yet, the affidavits may come with the most worrisome change for the leaker. Once signed, the leaker will reaffirm his or her potential criminal liability. The cellphone records raise obvious privacy concerns. Communications with Politico or intermediaries can be masked or concealed as casual or personal exchanges. An email entitled “Leaked Confidential Dobbs Draft” is not likely to exist. That means that any meaningful review would require a broader review, creating challenges in how to filter messages and emails. The affidavit may be a greater concern for the leaker. After all, the leaker may have wisely avoided using the cellphone or creating digital tracks. The affidavit is a sworn statement to federal investigators. If false, it would establish that a federal crime has been committed. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States. That would mean that any doubt would be removed for the leaker. If he or she were to go public or be uncovered in the future, there would be a risk of not simply disbarment but criminal prosecution. The leaker may expect that they will be lionized for this effort in the media, though that is more likely if it was a liberal rather than a conservative leaker. This could frustrate such plans. Frankly, I am surprised that such affidavits were not required in the first week. Despite claims that the leaker is clearly coming from one side or the other, there are equally plausible theories for a leaker on the right or the left. What is clear is that this was a disgracefully unethical act that shattered the long traditions of the Court. The affidavits will make it more difficult for this individual to later try to capitalize on this wrongful act.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok

When Democrats Leftists Leftism and SocComLibs are so self-admittedly egregious that even they the Left have to CensorBan their own activities... Ruth Sent Us gets defiled by its own Twitter Mafia... Twitter Suspends Pro-Abortion Group Publicizing Justices’ Home Addresses https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-suspends-pro-abortion-group-publicizin... https://www.theepochtimes.com/man-arrested-near-home-of-supreme-court-justic... After two months of protests outside the homes of conservative justices, Twitter suspended on Thursday the activist group that had leaked their residential addresses. Protesters march past Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home in Chevy Chase, Maryland on June 8, 2022. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images) Ruth Sent Us, a pro-abortion group named after the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, publicized in May a map containing the locations of the six GOP-appointed Supreme Court justice’s residences on its website, before inciting far-left activists to protest there. It was in the wake of a leaked draft majority opinion from the high court to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision, which had granted a federal right to abortion nationwide since 1973. “Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights,” the group claimed online at the time. “We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.” Since then, leftist groups have targeted and walked by the homes of Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Although Ruth Sent Us said it was “committed to non-violence,” many protesters yelled obscenities at justices and their families. The online publicity has already led to a would-be attacker being arrested for attempted murder near Kavanaugh’s house, who had brought a firearm and ammunition after finding the justice’s address online. Ruth Sent Us then highlighted on Twitter the daily routine of justices on the morning of June 8, including Barrett’s church and the school her children attend. “If you’re in the DC metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage,” the group said in a June post, which has since been deleted. “Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the Board of Directors for. She attends church DAILY,” the post reads. The group had also pushed for protestors via Twitter to disrupt Catholic masses on Mother’s Day. Twitter did not specify which post was the last straw that touched its red line, but such moves appeared to breach the platform’s official policy that prohibits doxxing. “You may not publish or post other people’s private information without their express authorization and permission. We also prohibit threatening to expose private information or incentivizing others to do so,” the rules state. Protesters march past Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home in Chevy Chase, Maryland on June 8, 2022. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images) Conservative critics have questioned the fair enforcement of Twitter’s policy of banning those who purportedly incite violence. Former President Donald Trump was permanently banned from the platform two days after the Jan. 6 Capitol breach for arguing the 2020 election was not legitimate. When the Supreme Court handed down the reversal of Roe v. Wade at the end of June, Ruth Sent Us reposted a map on its website listing the justices’ home addresses, suggesting a new round of onsite demonstrations. Although Facebook banned the group from its platform soon after the reversal, their new account still functioned as recently as this week. “We’re starting fresh here, but we’re on week 10 of sustained protests at the Justices homes, and we’re growing and adapting. Please share widely!” the group stated via its new page on Monday.

"Should Not Live In Fear" - Chief Justice Roberts Year-End Message Focuses On Judges' Security https://www.theepochtimes.com/end-of-year-report-by-chief-justice-roberts-sa... https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2022year-endreport.pdf After a difficult 2022 at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said in an annual report that the personal security of judges needs to be a priority. “The law requires every judge to swear an oath to perform his or her work without fear or favor, but we must support judges by ensuring their safety,” Roberts wrote (pdf) in the “2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” which was made public late Dec. 31. “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear,” he added. Chief Justice John Roberts at the Supreme Court Building in Washington on Nov. 30, 2018. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo) In the report, Roberts paid tribute to federal Judge Ronald N. Davies, who in 1957 ruled in favor of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas, who had been barred from attending a local high school despite the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 1954 striking down school desegregation on constitutional grounds. Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, a Democrat, ordered the state’s National Guard to block the students but “when it came time to rule in the school desegregation litigation, Davies did not flinch,” Roberts wrote. Angry crowds resisted the desegregation effort and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower directed the 101st Airborne to make sure the black students could attend the school. In his role as Chief Justice of the United States, Roberts, appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush, both presides over the Supreme Court and oversees the federal judiciary. The report does not reference the unprecedented leak in May 2022 of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that legalized abortion nationwide. The Supreme Court is said to be investigating the leak, but the identity of the leaker or leakers is still unknown. Various justices have said publicly and repeatedly in recent months that the public would be updated on the progress of the investigation but no updates have been issued. The report also does not reference the raucous protests at the homes of the conservative justices in Maryland and Virginia, nor the attacks on justices such as Brett Kavanaugh who was the target of a foiled assassination attempt and of flash-mob harassment in public outings by left-wing activists. Roberts defended the right of Americans to disagree with court rulings. “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 said recent security legislation was a step in the right direction. Roberts acknowledged that last month Congress passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act to help protect judges and their families. The measure was named after the son of federal Judge Esther Salas of New Jersey, who was killed by an assailant when he answered the door to his mother’s home. Roberts did not mention that on June 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act into law. The measure gives Supreme Court officials greater authority to protect the court, members of the justices’ immediate families, and other court employees. The report also states that caseloads for the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, fell over the past year. In the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2022, the number of cases docketed by the Supreme Court dropped by 8 percent compared to the previous 12-month period. Similar declines were seen in federal courts of appeals, district courts, and bankruptcy courts.