The recent SCOTUS decision that began returning us to the MAGA world of the 1950s when men were men in their rightful position, women were women in every negative sense of that word then, Minorities knew their place, and Gay people were to remain closeted, in spite of their promises that this undoing of fifty year precedent in ROEvWADE is a one-off, is being seen by at least one Justice as the first of many reviews of previous SCOTUS decisions that acknowledged rights not specifically included in the Constitution, and undoing them.
Gay rights, Voter rights, Civil Rights, and Women having credit cards, a say in their medical treatment, being able to enter contracts without a spousal co-sign and many more assumed rights of many, as yet, unsuspecting victims can be taken away if the conservative Justices decide to do so. That promise that this was a one-off came from four Justices who got on the Bench by lying to the senate and the American people during their nomination hearings as the recent decision now reveals.
Most people getting a job are familiar with having to sign the statement on the application swearing that everything is true to the best of their knowledge and to lie on an application could lead to termination and potential loss of earned benefits when found out regardless of length of employment, so getting a job that controls people’s rights after having lied to us, the employer, does not sit well.
Exercising their right to assembly, but doing so without all the simple tourist giddiness of January 6, 2021 rowdiness, people had begun to gather in front of the homes of three justices to let them know that “We The People” don’t approve of being ignored in the majority for some minority religion’s principles after having been lied to.
And then this happened.
The head of security for the Supreme Court requested that Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland enforce a law barring protests in front of the homes of the justices living in Maryland, Roberts and Kavanaugh.
There is such a law and it was sufficient just to ask that it be enforced, but the head of security in the request went beyond the purview of the law and claimed a right.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s top security officer, Gail Hogan, based the request on the protests being “threatening activities” that violated the Maryland law that prohibits assembling “in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home.”
“I am writing to request that the Maryland State Police, in conjunction with local authorities as appropriate, enforce laws prohibiting picketing outside the homes of Supreme Court justices who live in Maryland.”
Now I would imagine three people standing outside a house just staring at it could be threatening to the residents inside enough to be worthy of police attention. An assembly outside a Justice’s house could fit into a very broad category that would include the above example to storming the Bastille but, regardless off size, should be accepted as a political statement supported by the First Amendment in more than one way, with security standing by without jumping to the immediate arrests that enforcement would entail.
Even if the crowd agreed to leave peacefully it would only take one improper or, perhaps, misunderstood interaction of one person on one side with one person on the other, and the fireworks go off.
Avoiding such an interaction because the assembly is allowed by the Constitution would avoid that and keep things peaceful.
The problematic irony is that in demanding enforcement of the state law, the head of security showed that because it is based on an unenumerated right, the law, being unconstitutional, cannot be enforced.
The appeal includes the claim that a person has a right to tranquility in the person’s home.
However, a reading of the Constitution shows that the word and any reference to Tranquility comes only in the Preamble and not the body of the document, and the once it is used, it refers to the federal government’s ability to keep states from fighting with each other when they have disagreements.
As a document establishing how the nation will be run, the Constitution’s use of “Domestic Tranquility” applies to the country as a political and geographic entity and not individual houses.
One of the aims of the Constitution is to be a tool for maintaining tranquility not guaranteeing it just as the Preamble says its purpose is.
There is no right to any form of domestic tranquility in the Constitution, especially related to one’s home, and enforcing an unenumerated right cannot trump the action of people peacably assembled as per their First Amendment right to do so.
Just ask Clarence Thomas and the other conservative Justices whose home are being picketed.
The Justices will just have to weather it out.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.