The Biden admin's propensity to play politics with the law is on full display outside the homes of some of the SC justices.


The Republican governors of Virginia and Maryland have responded to a letter from the Supreme Court's top-ranking security official (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/judiciary/supreme-court) calling on them to utilize police and law enforcement to prevent picketing at the homes of justices.
"The governor agrees with the Marshal that the threatening activity outside the Justices' homes has increased," Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin spokesperson Christian Martinez said in response to a letter from Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-marshal-calls-maryland-officials-enforce-laws-banning-protests-outside-justices-homes) calling on the governor to "enforce state law" that prohibits picketing outside the homes of the justices.
"He welcomes the Marshal of the Supreme Court's request for Fairfax County to enforce state law as they are the primary enforcement authority for the state statute," the statement added.
Youngkin also called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to "do his job" by "enforcing the much more robust federal law."

It is against Federal Law. (18 US code 1507) Why doesn't Garland act ?

Heard and interesting thought. Once the decision was made public there was no longer “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer”
That could only happen before the decision was released .

Brought to court ,the court would side with protestors on pulbic sidewalks on 1st amendment grounds.

That may be why Curley is seeking enforcement of state laws as an alternative to federal enforcement. But if Federal laws could be challenged over 1st amendment protection then so could State laws . She works under direction of the court ,not the executive branch .

But let's say then that a state does what she asks ;then the arrest gets challenged in court ;and the case makes it to SCOTUS . Is there then a conflict of interest if Roberts directed her to make the request ?

Anyway this is a classic example of solving a problem by passing the buck . Typical swamp.

Did Curely act on her own ;with coordination of Chief Justice Roberts ?