The official Democrat party line, from Biden on down, is in place: it's irrelevant that federal law explicitly bans conducting protests in front of judges' homes (or during church services, for that matter).  Democrats approve of those protests and, when asked to explain, they'll tell you that it's because conservatives have protested around Democrat politicians.  By saying that, they show their total ignorance about the difference between politicians, who must be responsive to the people, and judges, who shouldn't be.

Abortion bullies have been on the move, protesting at the homes of Supreme Court justices and attacking churches.  Both of those activities are illegal.  Regarding the protests in front of the justices' houses, 18 USC §1507 is clear.  It makes it a federal offense to conduct a protest "in or near a building or residence occupied or used by [a] judge," for the purpose of "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge ... in the discharge of his duty."  (Although it's not relevant to his post, if you're wondering, under 18 U.S. Code §248, it is a violation of federal law to "intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.")

The law, however, means little to Democrats.  Or rather, they care about it only when it benefits them.  In this case, they don't perceive a benefit.  That's why, on Tuesday, Jen Psaki stated that "the President's position" — which should be to have federal law enforcement arrest protesters outside of the justices' homes — is, instead, simply to encourage any such protests to be peaceful:

Psaki on "protests that have been peaceful to date":

"We certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges' homes." pic.twitter.com/h3t8Jsw1Ss

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 10, 2022

It wasn't just Psaki and Biden.  Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, also thought "peaceful" protests were fine, expressly adding that he felt that way because "there's protests three, four times a week outside my house."  As this video showed, lots of Democrat politicians felt the same way: if conservatives can protest around me, pro-abortion people can protest around the Supreme Court justices' homes:

Democrat politicians approve of protesting at Supreme Court justices' homes because people protest at these politicians' homes.https://t.co/FgOdbefiX3

— American Thinker (@AmericanThinker) May 11, 2022

It's important to point out that Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Rashida Tlaib, and Elizabeth Warren are all lawyers.  Indeed, Warren was a law professor, and it is claimed that Biden was, too.  That fact makes what I'm about to say all the more embarrassing for them, assuming they have the capacity to be embarrassed.

Image: Protesters outside Supreme Court justices' homes.  YouTube screen grab.

There's a reason there's a law protecting judges from protests, no matter how "peaceful," and no corresponding law for politicians: politicians are meant to be responsive to the people; judges are not.  It's that simple.

The federal Judiciary in America works because we carve out a space for impartiality.  Judges get lifetime appointments specifically so that their careers are not dependent on the whims and demands of the people.  The moment a judge's decisions are obviously determined by favoritism, bribes, or threats, that patina of impartiality is gone.

For elected officials to say a judge determining whether a principle is constitutional is precisely the same as a politician representing the will of the people is pretty shameful.  And when those same elected officials are law school graduates who should be conversant with the Constitution and the way in which courts should operate, such statements are a testament either to their stupidity or to the fact that their ideological beliefs have overridden all semblance of intelligence.