Juan Williams, Karl Rove, Brett Kavanaugh assassination attempt edition

When Karl Rove challenged Juan Williams on the subject of the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Williams got hit hard. Rove got the better of Williams, especially in this exchange:

ROVE: Absolutely. I mean, this is -- look, this is sort of personal. I know Ashley and Brett Kavanaugh personally from our time together in the White House. And I -- it's amazing to me. The law is clear, you quoted it. It goes on to say "with the intent of influencing any judge." And I love it, the American Civil Liberties Union says, yes, this is the statue but we interpret it the following way. We point to a Supreme Court case that suggests that as long as they keep moving in front of the house -- if they are stationary, they should be arrested but if they are moving in front of the house they have a right to try and influence a Supreme Court justice. And that is ridiculous. And if it is true, I didn't see Senator Schumer moving very much behind that microphone in front of the U.S. Supreme Court where he had a clear intent of influencing a Supreme Court justice. So we either ought to apply the law or we ought to just simply say it's open season judges, because that's what we're doing.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think you have a right to protest. I think you have...

ROVE: Yes, but not in front of their house.

WILLIAMS: Wait, you have a right to protest anywhere in America. Now clearly these people should not be violent and they should not threaten. But the idea that they are influencing -- I don't think it's about the influence. I think it's about a Supreme Court that has become radical and extremist and activist and is going to put out a decision that's going to, believe me, polarize this country...

To be honest, though, both men miss 2 other points. First, the judicial branch isn't supposed to be a political branch. This should be obvious from the standpoint of there being no firms that lobby the Supreme Court. Compare that with the number of firms that are registered to lobby the legislative and executive branches. That's why judges are confirmed to lifetime positions. That's why they're called the "independent judiciary." That isn't what we have but that's what they're called.

Williams' point is weak from the standpoint that the right to protest isn't absolute. Should people have the right to protest or intimidate members of a jury? If not, why not? Should people have the right to intimidate a trial judge who's the sitting judge for a major criminal trial? If not, why not? I posit that the right to protest ends with the right to a fair trial. While it isn't the same as the right to have a jury of my peers, the right to have Supreme Court justices deliver a ruling without getting threatened or intimidated or having the justices' their families threatened or intimidated should be given the same priority. There isn't a right to threaten or intimidate judges. People showing up at a judge's or justice's house is intimidation.

Mr. Rove is right, though, in ridiculing the ACLU's position that USC1507 isn't applicable if protesters keep moving. That's ridiculous thinking. The right to protest politicians is absolute. The right to protest judges, justices and their families should be off-limits.

Watch this oft-played clip and tell me if Sen. Schumer is attempting to intimidate Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh:

If that isn't the definition of attempting to intimidate Supreme Court justices, then it doesn't have a definition. Sen. Schumer should be thrown out of the Senate for that type of behavior.