Man Indicted For Threatening To Lynch "Corrupt" Justice Thomas And His "Insurrectionist" Wife

There are consequences to the rhetoric about the Court from high ranking officials.

Yesterday the Department of Justice indicted Panos Anastasiou for making threats against "Supreme Court Justices 1-6." Threats were also made against "Family Members 1 and 2" of "Supreme Court Justices 1 and 2." The indictment doesn't name who the six Justices and their family members are, but it isn't hard to figure things out. The motion to seek a detention hearing lists the specific messages that the defendant submitted through the Supreme Court's website. I will reproduce theme here, as relayed by DOJ.

January 4, 2024: "I'd like to see [Former President 1 and Supreme Court Justice 1] hanging together from an Oak tree. I'd gladly provide the rope and pull the handle."

May 10, 2024: "Subject: N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1]", "I'd like to see you have a real lynching and I'll donate the tree and pull the lever… you worthless piece of n***** shit."1

May 16, 2024: "I would have had NO reservations about walking up to [Supreme Court Justice 2] and not asking him to take it down but to put a BULLET in this mother fuckers head."

May 17, 2024: "I'm going to call and urge my fellow Vietnam veterans… to drive by the [Supreme Court Justice 2]'s house with their AR15's and when fucking [Supreme Court Justice 2] and his fucking PIECE OF SHIT CUNT WIFE are HOME spray the home of these disrespectful mother fuckers with hundreds of rounds… hopefully killing these SCUMBAG COCKSUCKERS. Hopefully N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1] and his white trailer trash n***** loving insurrectionist wife are visiting."

June 18, 2024: "I don't want to see these two corrupt mother fuckers assassinated… I'd like to see them TORTURED worse than Kim Jung Un would torture his own family. You know, like putting electrodes up their ass and on their balls, needles under their finger nails, pulling their teeth with pliers, etc etc. Make these SCUMBAGS beg for their lives."

July 1, 2024: "ASSASSINATING THESE COCKSUCKERS IS THE ONLY PANACEA… that includes the CONVICTED CRIMINAL, [Former President 1]. Again as an AMERICAN and to defend the constitution and democracy I want the assassinations by any ENTITY of the government or even a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN to commence. And PLEASE start with the assassination of the N***** and HERMAPHRODITE. As a Vietnam veteran and if I had the means and way I'd assassinate them myself. These fuckers are NOT ABOVE THE LAW."

July 3, 2024: "WE NEED MASS ASSASSINATIONS. If you're corrupt you're corrupt… don't give us this official and unofficial bullshit. You mother fuckers are UNELECTED and Americans have no trust in you. The internet is abuzz with Americans clamoring for your ASSASSINATIONS. We need to assassinate you fuckers and put your heads on a pike and use them as soccer balls. I want to be the first to kick [Supreme Court Justice 6] head down Pennsylvania Ave. You don't want to ask me what I'd like to do to the N***** and [Supreme Court Justice 2]."

July 5, 2024: "We should make [Supreme Court Justices 1-6] be AFRAID very AFRAID to leave their home and fear for their lives everyday."

Justice 1 is Justice Thomas. Family member 1 is Ginni Thomas.

Justice 2 is Justice Alito. Family member 2 is Martha Ann Alito.

And I am just going to guess that Justices 3 through 6 include Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. I'm not sure for certain who Justice 6 is, and why the defendant wants to kick his or her head down Pennsylvania Avenue.

I am grateful that the defendant was apprehended, but these threatening messages began nearly eight months ago. Far be it from me to question law enforcement, but it seems in recent times that the government has failed to act upon threats until guns were in the vicinity of public officials. Do would-be assassins get one free shot at a Justice's ear? Are they allowed to hide for twelve hours in a bush outside the Justice's home? We know the Kavanaugh assassin was able to take a stroll past the Justice's house. I'm glad DOJ finally got around to indicting him! In the meantime, Justice Barrett needs to explain to her children why she has a bullet-proof vest.

Let me make a broader point. There is a common theme in the defendant's rants: the Justices are corrupt, they are in cahoots with President Trump, and Ginni Thomas is an insurrectionist. Where could the defendant possibly have heard such messages? Surely, one could find these comments in the dregs of social media. But these slanders are also issued repeatedly by leading Democratic lawmakers. Indeed, the entire basis of President Biden's "Court Reform" plan is that the Justices are "corrupt" and cannot be trusted. There are consequences to the rhetoric about the Court from high ranking officials.

I wish more people in positions of power would defend the Court. I praise in the highest terms a recent speech that Kannon Shanmugam delivered at Duke, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Kannon points out how public officials use language that is similar to Panos Anastasiou's, minus the racial slurs. Kannon offers some examples:

… the attacks have been accompanied by unusually toxic rhetoric. Consider statements like these:

• "The extreme far-right, MAGA majority on the United States Supreme Court is totally out of control."

• "This activist, extremist MAGA court faces a legitimacy crisis."

• "The problem is not that the Supreme Court is just conservative. The problem is that it is corrupt."

• "We must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court."

• "The Supreme Court is a cesspool of corruption devastating our communities."

These statements do not come from random people; all of them come from members of Congress. And it does not take much imagination to realize what the rhetoric elsewhere looks like.

And Kannon expressly ties this sort of rhetoric with the assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh:

As observers across the political spectrum noted in the immediate aftermath of the attempted assassination of former President Trump, the rhetoric in American public life, on both sides, has more generally become overheated; indeed, we practicing lawyers (myself included) sometimes cross the line, too. But I believe that the attacks on the Court's legitimacy, and the accompanying rhetoric, are having two deeply concerning effects. First, as the two distinguished recent leaders of this school's Bolch Judicial Institute, David Levi and Paul Grimm, have recently warned, attacks on the legitimacy of the courts are contributing to the threat of violence against judges in general. And the same can be said with regard to the Supreme Court in particular. Most obviously, a man has been charged with the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh after allegedly turning up at his home with a gun and other weapons. (The man has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.) Others have recently been charged with or detained for making threats against the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett. It is impossible to draw a direct link between the attacks on the Court's legitimacy and any of these recent alleged crimes. But when even members of Congress are threatening that Justices will "pay the price" and "won't know what hit them" if they issue decisions reaching certain outcomes, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the rhetoric around the Court's legitimacy risks adding to the problem.

Kannon is exactly right. As we are told over and over again, words have consequences.

And I only wish more members of the Supreme Court bar would be so vocal in speaking out on this issue. They make a lot of money off of the Court. Certainly their firms, and clients, would appreciate even a modest defense of the Justices.

The same charge goes to the Department of Justice. I'm looking right at you Attorney General Garland. You are quite fond of criticizing former-President Trump, whom your special counsel is trying to convict, but criticism should also be targeted at your boss. Ditto for Solicitor General Prelogar, who should spend a little less time sitting with Vanity Fair, and spend more time explaining why her boss's proposal would be so destructive for the Court. One wonders if any other Attorney General would ever approve of such a puff piece about the Solicitor General.

Comments

[Sarcastr0]

Kannon is exactly right. As we are told over and over again, words have consequences.

Guess whose on this bullshit train now?

The same charge goes to the Department of Justice. I’m looking right at you Attorney General Garland. You are quite fond of criticizing former-President Trump, whom your special counsel is trying to convict, but criticism should also be targeted at your bosss
Never once mentioned Trump’s rhetoric.

Until you check your own side as well, no one can have the impression you mean a word of this; just more partisan chaff as the election nears.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course! The Left is attempting to kill President's and SCOTUS judges because the Right won't "check itself"!!!

Great comment! The Left is the REAL VICTIM here! Who can blame them for trying to kill people who don't share their world view!?!?!

[SimonP]

For a moment, I thought this was a Eugene post, and I was alarmed that he'd finally gone over the edge.

Then I checked, and I was relieved. It's just Josh, again.

[M L]

Don't you want anyone else joining you at the bottom of knuckle dragger gulch?

[Vandalia]

I don’t remember your post complaining about the “Hang Earl Warren” billboards in the south.

Your concern about criticism of the Court is awfully new.

[Lee Moore]

If you had read such a post by Josh, you’d have to concede it would have been pretty precocious. Wikipedia conceals Josh’s date of birth, but from his graduation date it looks like Earl Warren was dug in a good ten years before Josh was born.

There probably weren't too many "Hang Earl Warren" billboards about, by the time Josh was in long pants.

[Longtobefree]

Funny, all the ones I saw read Impeach Earl Warren, not hang him.

[Bored Lawyer]

Seriously? Apart from the fact that Blackman was not born yet, there was no internet, and hence no blog posts.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt”

[Sarcastr0]

Dude's pretending this is unprecedented.
He deserves to be dragged.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dude is also pretending he doesn’t use harsh rhetoric when it suits him. As I note below he accused Roberts of “destroying the marble palace from the inside.”

[Krayt]

Don't you hate it when people make a big deal saying things are unprecedented?

It's the end of the world as we know it. Look how serious my face is, y'all!

[Vandalia]

Excuses, excuses.
Can't you come up with something better than he wasn't born yet?

He has conveniently ignored similar facts in his previous writings.

[M L]

Link to said billboards?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Perhaps, Josh Blackman should target some ire at the VC contributor who recently had a supportive interview with Solicitor General Prelogar. Politely, of course.

The Supreme Court, for reasons of varying degrees of validity, has strongly been criticized for almost the length of its tenure. Conservatives have been included in this group, repeatedly in strong terms accusing it of illicit judgments.

People critical of the Supreme Court have supported peaceful means of court reform, which Josh Blackmun selectively (he has personal proposals) sneered at.

Blackman is a tiresome hack.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since the professor is concerned about the safety of the justices, I think leaving this out was merely an oversight:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/19/politics/sotomayor-salas-supreme-court-security/index.html

The article notes:

James Duff, then-director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, told Congress last year that there were 4,449 threats and inappropriate communications in 2019, up from 926 such incidents in 2015, according to the US Marshals Service.

If we are concerned about violent rhetoric, who is the leading spewer of such rhetoric? The one with the most reach?

Democrats have over and over again, from Biden on down, spoken out against violent rhetoric. They over and over again support peaceful dissent. (See the First Amendment)

Peaceful dissent, including strong disagreement, is as American as apple pie. When the Supreme Court held that black people had no rights a white man need respect, people like Lincoln strongly spoke out. It was not a dogwhistle to send homophobic letters to Taney.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He has literally never mentioned the fact that Judge Esther Salas’s son was murdered by a Trump supporter who had Sotomayor on a hit list. If Den Hollander had succeeded in killing Salas (or Sotomayor), the post almost certainly would have been about whether Trump could fill the seat.

[Dan Schiavetta]

And that was only because the son happened to be the one who opened the door. If it had been the judge, she would have been the murder victim.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s also important to remember that Den Hollander had successfully murdered someone in California 8 days before he attacked Salas’s home. Both of these hits appeared to involve a somewhat sophisticated disguise which enabled him to escape. Indeed, Den Hollander’s body was found a day after the killing already 2 hours away. Had he decided to keep on killing others rather than himself he possibly would have succeeded in killing another judge (or justice).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. See also here:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-judges-threats

There IS a major issue here. It deserves serious discussion. Which will be found elsewhere, except perhaps in comments.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There’s also the well-documented threats to the judges in Trump’s various criminal and civil cases.

[Snorkle]

I see Mr. Manager wishes to speak with the manager now.

This is the most ridiculous load of affected outrage I've seen since... the last time I read some whiny MAGA dead ender wheeze. If he'd ever even vaguely gestured at concern about violence against pols whose ass he doesn't kiss, or concern with the autogolpe, or any indication that he's not just as much an unamerican authoritarian as his aspirational pals, I'd give him a pass. But this is just pathetic.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I'm looking right at you Attorney General Garland."

I don't believe you can crane your neck high enough to do so, you fucking slimeball.

Trump has spent every rally, every event, and every chance he gets when opening his mouth for the last 8 years attacking anyone and everyone except white nationalists and 'Christians,' including calling for violence himself, and using the very language he acts offended by to call Harris, Biden, etc. "Communist, Marxist, Fascists," and 'vermin' etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFC_SgU3qHw

Go fuck yourself Blackman.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What? There was a threat that Thomas would be actually lynched? In the real, low-tech way?

[TextFirst]

The "stochastic terrorism" nonsense is no better from the right than it was from the left. It's okay to talk about public figures, even in harsh terms. People are responsible for their own actions.

[Sarcastr0]

More or less agree. You want to name and shame people for violent posturing language, go for it - that kind of behavior does have some public opprobrium.

But doing so via janky causal connections just makes you look dumb.

Doing so as an imitation of your political opponents doing makes you look dumb and pathetic.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don't think you have any mirrors in your home. You don't seem to realize you exist.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Huh. That’s actually moderately clever.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I forgot to mention that Trump was asked about the bomb threats his racist lies about Springfield and Haitian migrants have resulted in.

Q: Do you denounce the bomb threats in Springfield, OH?

A: I, I don't know what happened uh with the uh bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio.

Trump can't even bring himself to say he's against bomb threats. Trump's behavior is the issue, not anyone calling out his awful behavior.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean we have multiple examples of mass-shootings that are in part influenced by right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric.

[TextFirst]

So first off you're restating the lie that the Springfield thing had anything to do with race. A Haitian can be of any race. But also, he merely said he didn't know what happened with the bomb threats. He wants to gather more information before commenting. That's an example more politicians should follow.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“He wants to gather more information before commenting.”

To quote/paraphrase Noscitur: you’re not dumb enough to believe we’re dumb enough to believe that you actually believe that. So why did you say this?

[TextFirst]

? I was merely reporting on what happened. It's not a good practice for a candidate (or public official) to hear about something for the first time from a reporter, then comment on it. It's also not great to comment on an incident right away-- look at how many had to backtrack from Jussie Smollett when that turned out to be a hoax. I think a measured "I don't know" is an acceptable response under the circumstances. Don't you?

The irony is that Trump admittedly erred when he repeated something that had been widely reported, but not corroborated yet. Attack him for that if you like, because despite it not being racist, a candidate should be more careful. But I find it funny he's getting dinged for that, then ALSO getting dinged for being cautious. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right but no one. Not even you actually believes Trump wanted more information before speaking. So why did you say he did?

[TextFirst]

I don't know why you're coming to that conclusion. That appears to be the most straightforward interpretation of his response to me. I guess "I don't know what happened" doesn't EXPLICITLY state a desire to learn more, but it's pretty strongly implied. Like if somebody says "I'm hungry" they're not outright saying they want food, but it's a safe assumption. If you think it meant something else, then rather than playing coy go ahead and elaborate. I suspect the answer will be conspiratorial.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well considering the context of this specific issue is him literally not confirming stuff before accusing a community of eating people’s pets based on bullshit he saw online or was told about, it is kind of remarkable that he suddenly has embraced patience and restraint as a virtue when it comes to bomb threats that occurred after his remarks. Moreover, it is neither required nor recommended to simply disregard a lengthy and well-documented history of him saying a bunch of supported bullshit in interpreting a particular remark. Yet for some reason you choose to view this comment in isolation as if he has some wisdom that has never previously been demonstrated. So again: no one believes he was simply waiting for information to make a reasoned statement. And you don’t actually believe that either.

[Estragon]

“him literally not confirming stuff before accusing a community of eating people’s pets based on bullshit”

Per the WSJ, Springfield officials were actually contacted by a staffer from the Vance campaign before the debate, inquiring about the pet-eating rumors… which of course they denied. Imagine how surprised they were when Trump rolled out this chestnut at the debate anyways! So it’s inaccurate to say he spouted this without confirming it first.

[TextFirst]

So you have a chain of ad hominin and speculation, but no actual comments on the remarks as given. Sounds like you started from your conclusion and worked backwards.

[DZM212]

You fell for some classic sealioning, LTG

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti

Ethnic Group: 95% black

He did not ask for ‘more information’ because;

1) He does not care about having more information about the consequences of his racist lies, and;

2) Nobody actually needs ‘more information’ about bomb threats before answering the easiest softball question in the world of “Do you denounce bomb threats.” The answer any decent person gives to such a question is immediately “Yes, of course I denounce bomb threats.”

Do you denounce bomb threats, or do you need more information?

Go fuck yourself.

[TextFirst]

So we all agree, not all Haitians are black. Therefore, simply saying a Haitian did something isn't racist, even to the extent an action by a Haitian is attributable to all, which is obviously not the case. As usual, the left is obsessed with making things about race, even though neither Trump nor Vance mentioned the race of anybody involved.

And while I condemn bomb threats, a candidate shouldn't hear about something for the first time from a reporter and then comment. He/she should do their own investigation or be briefed by their own people. It was just a silly gotchya over a trivial local crime story.

[Sarcastr0]

If this is a bit, it's really good.

If it's not a bit, you're too formalist to be allowed outside; you might see a STOP sign and starve to death.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s really a fantastic Poe’s law of right-wing approaches to language and interpretation.

[TextFirst]

? I'm just being honest. If you hear Haitian and assume all Haitians are black, then the problem is on your end. Haiti has always been a multi-racial, vibrant society starting from the founding generation of the Haitian Revolution which included hundreds of Polish fighters who were citizens of Haiti from day one. Since then, it's received numerous infusions of diversity. A lot of the confusion here seems to stem from racists who think all Haitians are black and that all black people are Haitians when neither thing is true.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So now you're not only ignoring Trump's decades-long history of racism, but you're going to pretend that him and Vance spreading hateful lies about a group which is 95% black somehow isn't another example of said racism?

What more information does anyone need about bomb threats to say they aren't acceptable? (Again, noting that Trump did not ask for any information, and since you seem to be either a lying asshole or one of the world's dumbest retards, I should mention that he immediately transitioned to saying the "real danger" was Kamala Harris' polices.)

You are exactly the kind of shitbag America needs to excise.

[TextFirst]

"So now you’re not only ignoring Trump’s decades-long history of racism"

There is no such history, this is just libs lying again.

"you’re going to pretend that him and Vance spreading hateful lies about a group which is 95% black somehow isn’t another example of said racism?"

No, because it's another example, it would be the first example, and the idea that it's racist is pure speculation.

"What more information does anyone need about bomb threats to say they aren’t acceptable?"

I would at least want to read about the threats from a neutral medium before responding to some journalist. A moment to think isn't bad; if anything, the world is infected by people who react first and think later.

"You are exactly the kind of shitbag America needs to excise."

You're just full of hate and finding targets to excrete upon. I'm sorry you're like this.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're a lying waste of resources the Earth could use back.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

Now fuck off.

[TextFirst]

You're lying or deluded. So I can see the preview of the Atlantic article and it says "from public acts (placing ads calling for the execution of five young black and Latino men accused of rape, who were later shown to be innocent)"

This is a lie. There was one ad in question which didn't mention anybody in particular, it was just general pro-Death Penalty advocacy. The left lies constantly about race, then say there's a long list. But always when you chase it down, it's just a pack of lies. Anti-black/anti-latino racism is incredibly rare and was mostly stamped out decades ago. But racism is one of the only cards in the liberal deck, so they """find""" it whenever possible.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well I'm not a 'liberal,' so your entire premise is bullshit to begin with, and it's quite clear that you, like most of the other right-wing fuckheads around here, do not care for truth or facts, and exist here for the sole purpose of spreading partisan lies.

No wonder you hide behind a pseudonym. Being held accountable for your bullshit in person would be...unpleasant for you.

[David Nieporent]

The Springfield thing had everything to do with race, and your bullshit pretense is pathetic.

Second, why does one need to "know what happened with the bomb threats" to denounce them? In what context are bomb threats ever not denounceworthy?

Third, Jason didn't actually fully report Trump's words. His actual response was "I don't know what happened with the bomb threats. I do know it's been taken over by illegal migrants and it's a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was a beautiful town and now they're going through hell. It's a sad thing. Not gonna happen with me I can tell you that right now."

So, in other words, not only did he refuse to denounce the threats, but he doubled down in trying to get black people lynched by lying about them. (The Haitians in Springfield are not "illegal." And it is not in fact a "terrible thing that happened." The town was dying, and now it's not; it is not "going through hell.")

[Estragon]

“In what context are bomb threats ever not denounceworthy?”

Didn’t libsoftiktok also struggle with this?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thanks for bringing that up, David.

I conflated two of his responses to similar questions. You are correct about the remaining answer about denouncing the bomb threats.

Last Friday, he was also asked "And now there are bomb threats at schools and kids being evacuated. Why do you still spread--"

He then interrupted the reporter with "No, no, no. The real threat is what's happening at our border."

It's hard to keep track of the multiple racist remarks he's made just within the past week. My mistake.

[TextFirst]

“Last Friday, he was also asked “And now there are bomb threats at schools and kids being evacuated. Why do you still spread–”

He then interrupted the reporter with “No, no, no. The real threat is what’s happening at our border.”

It’s hard to keep track of the multiple racist remarks he’s made just within the past week. My mistake.”

Another comment that has nothing to do with race and doesn't even mention it any way is somehow racist. The race-obsessed left sure is great at making everything about race, regardless of how little it has to do with arce.

[Vryedni]

The left cries a lot of wolf about race. But in every “boy who cried wolf” story, the wolf eventually comes. Trump is a wolf. Vance is a wolf. You’re a wolf apologist.

[TextFirst]

"The Springfield thing had everything to do with race, and your bullshit pretense is pathetic."

This wasn't true until the left made it about race. Nobody made it about race until the left claimed it was racist, because the left claim everything is racist.

"Second, why does one need to “know what happened with the bomb threats” to denounce them? In what context are bomb threats ever not denounceworthy?"

Well, among other things, bombing nazis is good? Or maybe the bomb threats were a hoax and it's hoaxsters that need to be denounced. I don't think taking a minute to think is a bad thing when asked to give an off the cuff response by a gotchya journalist.

"Third, Jason didn’t actually fully report Trump’s words. His actual response was “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats. I do know it’s been taken over by illegal migrants and it’s a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was a beautiful town and now they’re going through hell. It’s a sad thing. Not gonna happen with me I can tell you that right now.”"

Okay, so once again race was not mentioned.

"So, in other words, not only did he refuse to denounce the threats, but he doubled down in trying to get black people lynched by lying about them. (The Haitians in Springfield are not “illegal.” And it is not in fact a “terrible thing that happened.” The town was dying, and now it’s not; it is not “going through hell.”)"

You've moved from lying to fantasy land. Nobody mentioned lynching. Nobody mentioned black people. To the extent illegal migrants are in Springfield they are-- as you note-- not illegal migrants, so any comments Trump made about illegal migrants do not apply to those Haitians. So not only is not racist, it's explicitly not about Haitians by your own logic. It really sounds like you're getting mad for no reason or for partisan purposes.

[bernard11]

Jason didn’t actually fully report Trump’s words. His actual response was “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats. I do know it’s been taken over by illegal migrants and it’s a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was a beautiful town and now they’re going through hell. It’s a sad thing. Not gonna happen with me I can tell you that right now.”

It hasn't been "taken over by illegal migrants," per the (Republican) mayor, police, and (Republican) governor.

The Haitians are not "illegal migrants."

Nothing terrible has happened. The stories are lies made up by a blogger and amplified, without verification, by Vance, then Trump and many of his supporters, few (none?) of whom have the shred of decency or integrity to admit the whole thing is a fabrication. This despite the fact that we now have school closings and so on due to threats of violence, bombs, etc. Can you people go any lower?

They are not going "through hell" except to the extent that Trump and Vance have concocted and promoted a lie, which has had very bad effects on Springfield. The migrants have, according to local officials, actually helped the town.

Those who push this stuff are beneath contempt.

[Roger S]

Everything to do with race? I guess you are saying that Biden-Harris gave visas to the Haitians because of race, and sent them to Ohio because of race. It fulfills some DEI goal to send thousands of Blacks to a White town.

[verochkax]

Of course the Haitians are not "illegal" because Biden granted legal status to all of them for votes.

[Ben of Houston]

Well after the "good people on both sides" thing that still gets thrown in his face, I cannot blame him for saying that he doesn't know. Any misstatement will be held against him forever.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love this.

Hoax bomb threats from overseas are Trump's fault, meanwhile all that "dangerous to democracy", "must be stopped at all costs" language by the Democrats is also Trump's fault. Even after two assassination attempts and a chemical attack by Democrats.

[Roger S]

That's right. Hoax bomb threats from overseas. Prank phone calls. No actual bombs. I have no idea who is behind them, but they are being used as a distraction from the issue of disruptive foreigners pouring into Ohio. The implicit argument is that we have to let the Haitians clog the social services, cause traffic accidents, and maybe even eat the ducks, because otherwise someone might call in with a prank call from thousands of miles away. Trump is right not to comment on the calls.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So if there is a credible threat to John Roberts specifically we can blame you and your rhetoric right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Yet, I can live with Roberts' frustrating legal reasoning—it will have a short shelf-life. Most justices are forgotten as soon as they retire, and their precedents fade just as quickly. Roberts will suffer that fate, sooner or later.

However, I cannot abide by a crumbling Supreme Court. I would much rather have a competent chief justice who I constantly disagree with, but who can manage the Court, than a failed chief justice who sometimes writes decisions I partially approve of while the Court tears itself apart. An occasional five to four victory, which throws crumbs to the Right, is not enough to sit by idly as a whirlwind demolishes the marble palace from the inside. And I lay down this marker knowing full well that President Joe Biden will likely nominate Roberts' replacement.”

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

If your point is that extreme rhetoric often leads to stochastic violence (meaning, it inspires violence among the truly fringe nuts who happen to be listening, even if the speaker does not intend violence), then I agree. I agree that saying extreme things about other people when you have a large public platform may have the consequence of inspiring nutters to violence.

What would you like to do about that? If what you'd like to do is ban extreme or harsh criticism of public officials, that would be surprising to me. You engage in, frankly, extreme and harsh criticism of public officials all the time, and you have a public platform and a large audience.

If what you want to do is sanction or punish public officials who make extreme or harsh criticism against other public figures, that would be less obviously self-indicting, but I think we can imagine the dragnet of people that would catch and we could imagine who would be near the top of the list.

A few years back when I was at a large and popular academic conference about literally exactly this subject (the nexus between speech on social media and terrorism or violence). I spoke with an official at the British Home Office whose job it was to make determinations about terrorism sentencing enhancements. He told me candidly that by far the most obvious thing in cases like this is autism (and other neurodiversity / neurodevelopmental issues).

Disproportionately men who have reasonably high intelligence, reasonably low social and emotional intelligence, suffer from intrusive thoughts and fixations, and who don't have much going on life. He said this was a consistent pattern, whether dealing with school violence, violence against women, young Muslims in the UK radicalized to join ISIS, threats against public officials, etc.

I think this is probably an intractable problem. Rates of neurodiversity appear to be increasing even net of our ability to diagnose it (probably because of a combination of environmental factors, advancing maternal age). The internet provides a conduit for the worst impulses for people who have intrusive thoughts and fixations and low social skills. I think the state should be mindful of to what extent it's possible to protect vulnerable adults while ensuring maximum freedom.

But I also think part of being an adult is recognizing how certain things are bad from you and making good choices. If you are the kind of person who spends all day being extremely concerned about things that other people tell you are inconsequential, writing up a storm every day, yelling into the void, feeding all your most intrusive thoughts and obsessions, that is not productive. It is psychiatrically bad for you. At some point you need a healthier outlet. That applies to the people working themselves up into a lather continuously about assassinating federal officials, and also pearl-clutching bloggers who can't stop being angry all the time.

[not guilty]

The conduct alleged in the indictment ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.74712/gov.uscourts.akd.74712.2.0_1.pdf ) deserves harsh condemnation, no matter what one thinks of the current Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

No one deserves to be lynched, regardless of how satisfying it is to think of Clarence Thomas experiencing the horror that an actual lynching involves.

I would anticipate that defense counsel will raise an as applied challenge to the statutes on First Amendment grounds. I doubt that that will succeed, but it is at least a triable issue.

The First Amendment does not prohibit the government from criminalizing the communication of "true threats." Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam). "True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). "Political hyberbole" is not a true threat. Watts, at 708. As the Court explained in Black:

The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.

538 U.S. at 359-360.

There is an important distinction between a proposal to engage in illegal activity and the abstract advocacy of illegality. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 298-299 (2008); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–448 (1969) (per curiam); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928–929 (1982). Mere advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is not sufficient to permit the government to punish speech. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973).

In the Alaska matter, it may be that some, but not all, of what the accused communicated constitutes true threats. For example, the May 17, 2024 communication:

“I’m going to call and urge my fellow Vietnam veterans… to drive by the [Supreme Court Justice 2]’s house with their AR15’s and when fucking [Supreme Court Justice 2] and his fucking PIECE OF SHIT CUNT WIFE are HOME spray the home of these disrespectful mother fuckers with hundreds of rounds… hopefully killing these SCUMBAG COCKSUCKERS. Hopefully N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1] and his white trailer trash n***** loving insurrectionist wife are visiting.”

is more menacing than the May 10, 2024 screed:

“Subject: N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1]”, “I’d like to see you have a real lynching and I’ll donate the tree and pull the lever… you worthless piece of n***** shit.”

[Expurgations in the government's Notice of intent to seek detention hearing, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.74712/gov.uscourts.akd.74712.5.0.pdf ] The latter is more akin to crude ranting that, while vituperative, may be First Amendment protected as advocacy in the abstract.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"No one deserves to be lynched, regardless of how satisfying it is to think of Clarence Thomas experiencing the horror that an actual lynching involves."

Why do you find it satisfying to think of Justice Thomas being lynched?

[Ted Levy]

“Far be it from me to question law enforcement.”

Well there’s a problem right there.

[bernard11]

… the attacks have been accompanied by unusually toxic rhetoric. Consider statements like these:

1.• "The extreme far-right, MAGA majority on the United States Supreme Court is totally out of control."

2. • "This activist, extremist MAGA court faces a legitimacy crisis."

3. • "The problem is not that the Supreme Court is just conservative. The problem is that it is corrupt."

4. • "We must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court."

5. • "The Supreme Court is a cesspool of corruption devastating our communities."

WTF? These criticisms range from ordinary to overly harsh.

#1 is no different than RW criticisms of the court at other times.
#2 is a vague opinion, expressing disagreement with many decisions.
#3 is an exaggeration, IMO. Only some members are corrupt. And accusations of corruption are a commonplace of politics, here and elsewhere.
#4 is an ordinary political opinion about a subject in the news. It is not remotely "toxic."
#5 Same overstatement as #3, and the "devastating" business is overwrought.

None of these call for violence, not even indirectly. No talk of "2nd Amendment solutions." No individual Justices are named.

To criticize these statements as incitements to violence is to say that criticism of the court, if necessary at all, must, at worst, consist of polite formal, respectful, statements published where no one but a few law professors will read them.

I have no doubt that that is what Blackman would prefer, especially wrt the conservative Justices.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As I read them, I was surprised to see Blackman doing 1 – 5. Accustomed as we all are to EV's advocacy, I suppose he would call all of those 1A protected speech.

[bernard11]

I'd add that none of these are as bad as some of the things Trump has said about judges who ruled against him.

Blackman is beyond hackdom.

[Stephen Lathrop]

While opposing Blackman on this post, I concede I think things have come to a bad pass. When every time a judge does something hard to explain in favor of Trump, you have to ask yourself whether that might reflect death threats against the Judge, or the Judge’s family. There is more at stake than abstract speech freedom. A question of threat to judicial legitimacy arises.

Some folks insist prosecution of miscreants who threaten judges is too draconian, and a threat to free expression. I wonder why they do not join me in advocating a milder remedy—to require prior private editing of internet content, of the sort that prevailed throughout all publishing prior to passage of Section 230.

Leave the question of what content to block entirely in the hands of a myriad of mutually competitive private publishers, who collectively advocate viewpoints across the entire ideological spectrum. Do not let government set even one content-related standard for those private publishers to enforce. Let them decide their own content-related policies entirely on the basis of their own unfettered judgments.

But re-expose those private publishers to the one risk that kept private editing going before Section 230—the risk of civil damages for defamation. That would get the private editors in place.

As a practical matter, that would keep the government out of it, while encouraging strong headwinds to blow against violence-promoting publications. Some bad-actor publishers would continue unreformed, but vile content they promote would propagate less virally.

The public life of the nation would be greatly improved.

Looking forward, it is hard to imagine any other remedy that could be effective at all against oncoming AI-based attacks on public life and free expression. Many actors with interests to suppress public discourse will shortly come to understand that AI has put a tool in their hands with power to accomplish that. Some are already working at it. Private editing can raise a bulwark against that.

[James K. Polk]

Most of those messages are not true threats. The only likely true threat is the message in which he states he's going to call his fellow vets and shoot up Alito's house.

[DWB]

Must be the JOY I keep hearing about!

[fafalone]

Yes yes we're not supposed to use overwhelmingly true descriptions that criticize Republicans because someone unhinged (usually another Republican like the two who went after Trump) might get violent.

Meanwhile your fucking orange god uses the same language every day you damn raging hypocrite.

[RedDawg]

Indicted, as appropriate.

Now the AG needs to ensure all the "Hang Mike Pence" cowards face the same consequence.

[M L]

Wow. So this is what watching a lot of CNN and MSNBC does to your brain.

[Sarcastr0]

All you do here these days is post Breitbart.

[RedDawg]

C-SPAN, actually.

[loki13]

I think others have covered it already, but this post makes me think we are nearing Peak Blackman!

As we come closer to November, I await with some mixture of glee and trepidation his future posts.