Civic Register
| 6.8.22
Man Arrested for Attempting to Murder Justice Kavanaugh - Should the House Pass the Bipartisan Supreme Court Security Bill?
Should the House pass the bipartisan Supreme Court security bill that unanimously passed the Senate?
What’s the story?
- An armed man was arrested near the family home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the early hours of Wednesday morning, which thwarted an apparent attempt to assassinate the justice as the Supreme Court prepares to issue high-profile decisions regarding abortion and gun rights.
- The alleged murder plot comes as a bipartisan bill to bolster that passed the Senate unanimously a month ago has been stalled in the House as Democrats consider an alternative bill.
What happened?
- According to an affidavit filed in the federal district of Maryland recommending the charge of attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice, the suspect exited a taxicab in front of Kavanaugh’s home shortly after 1 a.m. After seeing a pair of Deputy U.S. Marshals standing next to their parked car, he walked down the street and called Montgomery County Emergency Communications Center.
- The man identified himself as Nicholas Roske and told the call taker that he was armed, suicidal, and that he had traveled to the area from California to kill the Supreme Court justice. The Montgomery County Police Dept. responded and encountered the man while he was still on the phone and he was taken into custody without incident. A search of his suitcase and backpack revealed a handgun with two magazines and ammunition, a tactical knife, a tactical chest rig, pepper spray, zip ties, duct tape, and tools used to break into homes.
- After Roske agreed to speak to FBI agents and signed a waiver of his rights, he told the detective he was upset about the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion related to abortion as well as the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The filing said Roske stated that he believed Kavanaugh would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws challenged in a case that will soon be decided. He said he wanted to give his life purpose by killing the justice, so he bought a gun, found his address on the Internet, and traveled to the area.
Bipartisan Supreme Court Security Bill Stalled in House
- In the wake of the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion in the Mississippi abortion case, pro-abortion rights protesters began demonstrations outside the homes of several conservative Supreme Court justices.
- The protests at justices’ homes prompted Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) to request that Attorney General Merrick Garland help coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts around the justices’ homes.
- It’s a violation of federal law to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge.” Violations are punishable with fines, up to one year in prison, or both.
- In response to threats to the safety of the Supreme Court justices, the Senate unanimously passed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022 on May 9th. The one-page bill introduced by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Coons (D-DE) clarifies that the Supreme Court Police have the authority to also protect the immediate family members of justices and officers of the Supreme Court if the Court’s Marshal determines it’s necessary.
- Since its passage in the Senate, the bill has languished in the House for more than a month. Democrats have proposed a bill that would also provide protection for Supreme Court clerks and other staffers as well as their families if deemed necessary. If the House were to take up and pass that bill, known as the Supreme Court Families Security Act of 2022, it would have to pass the Senate before it could become law.
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urged the House to pass the Senate’s version of the bill in the wake of the arrest in remarks on the floor:
“House Democrats need to stop their multi-week blockade against the Supreme Court security bill and pass it before the sun sets today.”
- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said he plans to ask unanimous consent to pass the bill by voice vote, although it’s unclear if Democrats will object. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said there were “very positive discussions” on Wednesday about the way forward on the issue.
- Efforts to intimidate Supreme Court justices have become more common in recent years. In 2020, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stood on the steps of the Supreme Court while oral arguments for an abortion case were ongoing inside and said in a speech to protesters:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
- Chief Justice John Roberts responded in a rare public statement, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Schumer later denied threatening the Supreme Court justices but acknowledged, “I shouldn’t have used the words I did.”
- Following Wednesday’s arrest, a spokesman for Schumer told National Review, “He is thankful law enforcement arrested this person today. He’s been clear that he supports peaceful protests.”
- Attorney General Merrick Garland said of the arrest, “Threats of violence and actual violence against the justices of course strike at the heart of our democracy and we will do everything to prevent them and hold the people who do them accountable.”
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / Douglas Rissing)
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy -
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment -
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... LGBTQIA+ -
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
Supreme Court justices, Congress & the executive branch should have the same security our elementary school children get.
You want to be safe?
We want our children safe!!!
Justices can always carry around a firearm for self-defense, or are they not aware of the 2nd Amendment that most of them love strengthening all the time? In all seriousness, until Congress first passes a bill to protect schoolchildren from mass-shootings, then Justices should not get special treatment.
This is an example of how incompetent Congress is. Even as simple as this they can't get accomplished.
Side Note: Chuck Schumer remarks were not only inappropriate and unprofessional, but meant to incite. There should be consequences for this.
(Repost with the relevant topic)
I don't condone violence of any kind, especially not against government officials such as Supreme Court justices.
Clearly the man who went after Justice Kavanaugh has issues, and maybe if Republicans ever passed better mental health coverage we could get him some help.But they won't, and they're certainly not going to take away his gun, so I guess we're lucky that Kavanaugh is ok.
I'm convinced Brett Kavanaugh is an alcoholic sexual assaulter, but he doesn't deserve to be threatened or attacked this way. He just deserves much more investigation into his history and record, and ethics.
Now is a good time to remember the difference between peaceful protests (even at justices' homes) and violent threats. Peaceful protest is still allowed under the First Amendment, but what this attacker did is wrong and should result in criminal punishment.
For those not paying attention, this attacker DOES NOT represent all protesters, all Democrats, or all critics of the Supreme Court and its justices. He is one man.
Unlike the rest of us, Brett Kavanaugh is protected by taxpayer funded Secret Service and not at risk from madmen with guns.
ONLY after
a) they (congress senate scotus judiciary police) secure our kids from guns unconditionally
b) scotus does not nullify any gun control reforms
when an official is under threat they are ready to jump
when our kids are dying we are bombarded with sheer nonsense from these same idiots?
let sanity prevail / until then you have NO RIGHT to be more secure than the rest of us especially our kids
In the past 40 days there have been 41 attacks on pregnancy centers, churches and pro-life groups. These are groups that just give women options but pro-abortion groups do not want women to have options or actual choice.
They should have the same amount of protection as our schoolchildren, and people in supermarkets.
They are not special, and should have to live by the same laws and rules (ABSOLUTLEY NO GUN/AMMUMITION REGULATION) as the rest of us. Also I think this should apply to our representatives and our senators, too.
Under Nitch McConnell the Senate is where bills go to die. Now he is demanding that the House do its job and pass a security bill for the justices. That's rich Mitch. A guy who wouldn't give Obama a Supreme Court pick, a guy who refuses to take up any bills under the present administration all of a sudden wants something and we have to bend over and kiss his butt. How about some give and take Mitch?
I believe the justices should live under the laws that they create. They create chaos, want us to live by the seat of our pants and then demand security for themselves after creating the danger we are all living under. The conservative justices have been anti-union, pro-business, in the Republican's playbook that the Heritage Foundation has vetted them for. So if they have created a world where our rights mean little; our rights to free and fair elections, a completely Gerrymandered republic, guns whenever and wherever, as much money infecting our politics as possible because corporations are people, inequality like never seen before, an absence of hope, women losing their right s to their own reproductive freedoms, back people losing their right to vote, etc. they should live under the laws they create. I care as much about their security as they care about ours, our children's, our future.
For the devil of me, I'm in complete loss of words why Speaker Pelosi has continually been dragging her feet in the passage of the legislation designed to protect the SCOTUS Justices.
Will anyone possibly explain to me why she is?
SneakyPete (6. 13. 22)
Shouldn't our children have the same protection?
In the constitution you have the right to protest on public property, not on private property or do damage or intimidate with guns or kill. You have the right to question all levels of government. It not the supreme courts right, but "We the people " that have the right to legislate by our founding father and the constitution. It would be infringing on yours and my rights.
This is another case for maybe. I think ALL People should be protected from the threat of gun violence. While SCOTUS historically has been a body rising above with the respect of all, this recent crop of Justices has provoked many with political appearances and naive statements. I'm not saying it is ok for this young man to attempt what he did, it was absolutely wrong. I am saying- let's get rid of the damn GUNS already; and, these naive conceited Justices need to know their place and stay out of politics. All people need to be protected from the threat of gun violence.
29 Arizona lawmakers received messages from Ginni Thomas in apparent bid to swap out Biden electors
tip of the iceberg
13 + term limits until then meaningless
shame on doj
shame on scotus
shame on congress
One definition of the word 'assassination' is defined as 'a well known person' and then only used for political or powerful people. I have to think all the mass killings were very 'well known' to their family, friends, co-workers, etc. too. I also have a hard time understanding why all of our government buildings within the U.S and worldwide to include Congress have as much security as our airports if not more. I would suggest 'we' as taxpayers remove all their security and provide only what they will vote for 'for all the people'. There can be risks in the workplace and they choose to work there. Government employees have the privilege to apply for the position or to be elected. Our children do not have the that same privilege, they 'must' go to school. Congress it's time for you to act and become an honest, decent, law abiding citizen. If you cannot, then at least make the playing field equal and remove ' 'all' of your security!
Don't see a need for this legislation since the person of interest (Roske) left Kavanaugh house when he saw the US Marshal's and turned himself in 50 minutes later because of suicidal thoughts. The current US Marshal protection provided by DOJ was a successful deterrent.
Nicholas John Roske basically turned himself in when he called emergency authorities saying he was having suicidal thoughts and had a firearm in his suitcase after successfully being deterred by US Marshals already guarding Kavanaugh’s home.
Roske had traveled from California to kill a specific United States Supreme Justice because he was upset about the leak of the Supreme Court opinion related to abortion rights, and an upcoming gun control case and the school shooting last month in Uvalde, Texas.
Roske was carrying a suitcase and backpack filled with a tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol, 2 magazines, ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light and duct tape.
He arrived by taxi at 1 am, looked at the US Marshals guarding Kavanaugh’s home and left the scene.
50 minutes later he called Montgomery County Police (which has jurisdiction over Chevy Chase where Kavanaugh lives) saying he was planning on harming himself and was taken into custody.
Protection for judges and politicians needs to be a part of gun safety that everyone is protected by. And it needs to be a package of measures as the recent shootings have shown us some shooters but guns the day of of or days before so waiting periods and background checks are the only way to identify them while others already own guns but have mentally unstable behaviors that families, colleagues, friends notice and need red flag laws.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nicholas-john-roske-brett-kavanaugh-arrest-b2096877.html
Pelvis will do anything to keep Rowe v Wade as the law of the land.
No how about a security bill for poor people. Eff him.
The justices of the Supreme Court deserve the same security as the Speaker of the House.
This Bill could easily be included in a bill on gun safety legislation. Safety for all Americans should be the goal of Congress. Reinstate the assault weapons ban, enact red flag laws, raise the age for gun ownership and include gun training as part of any ownership, more thorough background checks and limit the sale of large magazines and/or the number of bullets sold. None of these impose any hardship on gun ownership nor do they deny anyone gun ownership who is qualified, just like driving a car--it's regulated. The madness needs to stop. Protect all citizens.
Protect the Justices!
I am not completely opposed to protecting judges at all levels. SCOTUS judges already have 24/7 armed guards. But I do have an extreme opposition to the GOP outrage over the Kavanaugh incident and demanding immediate action to protect their pervy puppet, but doing absolutely nothing to protect our children. So no, no additional protections for anyone, until serious action is taken to assure our children are safe at school & other public places.
The decision to make laws regarding the safety of the American people should not be based on whether someone is Republican, Democrat or Other. What I do not like is that if the Democrats want to make things safer, the Republicans go up against them. After that if the safety is for a Republican, then it gets to be bipartisan. We as Americans do not like seeing our children murdered in cold blood. Something has to be done. If something cannot be done to protect the children, then I would vote against matters that would protect elected officials instead of children.
Every conservative on the supreme court has committed treason and admitted to it. It is the will of the people that they are put to death for this crime.