A man was arrested near the home of Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday morning with plans to harm the Supreme Court Justice. SCOTUS justices — especially the conservatives ones — have faced intense backlash since the alleged Roe v. Wade decision was leaked, and the left’s rhetoric against those justices hasn't helped. In fact, that rhetoric may be DIRECTLY responsible for terrifying events like this one. Newsweek’s Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what’s next for our Supreme Court justices, including the most important — and 'tragic' — question yet: Are they even safe?!
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: From the Washington Post. Breaking news today. Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home.
California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh's Maryland home, has been taken into custody by police.
After telling officers, he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The man described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon, and burglary tools.
These people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police apparently notified, that this person might pose a threat to the justice. But it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip.
The man apparently did not make it into Kavanaugh's property in Montgomery County, Maryland, but was stopped on a nearby street. Thank God.
This is -- this is truly, truly the result of the left being primed by left -- leftist and Democratic politicians. I don't believe that you can be held responsible for, you know, ginning people up, if you're not -- if you're not actually saying, you know, somebody is going to get you.
You know, it's -- it's really difficult. But listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer. Do you have it, Stu?
This is -- this is when they were talking. This is before the decision that was leaked. But he's talking about the court decisions, that are coming, including Roe vs. Wade.
STU: Yeah. He says, I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind. And you will pay the price. You won't be know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions. That's unbelievable.
GLENN: Okay. That is truly unbelievable. These guys do not have protection. They have had since the leak, thank God. Josh Hammer is joining us now.
He is the opinion editor of Newsweek, and the host of the Josh Hammer Show with Newsweek. I was just on it, I think last week or the week before.
He's really wicked smart. I think one of the real intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. And a good friend.
Welcome, Josh. How are you?
JOSH: Glenn, you're way too kind. It's great to join you again.
GLENN: So, Josh, you're watching this.
I've never seen anything hike this. Apparently, it happened Tuesday night. As it's being reported. No. One report said it was Tuesday. And this one says, 11:50 a.m. today.
Are the justices safe?
JOSH: First of all, it's tragic, that we have to even ask that question. I mean, this is not a question, that a healthy, republic, with a healthy rule of law. With a healthy law apparatus. Where there is no sense of this kind of two tier system of justice, between the deplorables and everyone else. Where, again, in a healthy functioning democracy, are the justices safe? Is just simply not a question, that ought to be asked.
So the very fact that we're opening a conversation with that question, I think is telling in and of itself.
But the tragic and short answer, Glenn, I think is no. And the answer right now, I think is -- it's a rather foreseeable consequence, unfortunately, of just the culture of anarchy, of lawlessness, of disrespect for institutions, of widespread iconoclasm of the Democratic Party, and their leftist minions have fomented.
They have directly fomented this culture.
Think back to the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020. Kamala Harris, they're in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with bail funds for people who were rioting in the streets.
This is their safe. This is their safe. But even -- it was lawlessness and anarchy, as being rejected. The problem obviously, it apparently has not trickled up to the Biden administration.
Because there was a direct statute on the books. Eighteen U.S. Code 1507. That prohibits the protesting throughout the justice homes, and Attorney General Merrick Garland had some mealy-mouthed memo, where he said, oh, this is not appropriate.
But, you know, he hasn't brought a single case. He can do that. So he should.
GLENN: Right. And yet, tomorrow, we'll see the January 6th show trial.
First show trial that I know of in my lifetime here from America. We know about them in Russia and other places like that.
Yesterday, terrorists firebombed a pro-life center in Buffalo. This is the second time that there's been a firebombing by the revenge -- or Jane's revenge.
And they are calling for a -- a nationwide 8:00 p.m. riot on the day that they release the Supreme Court releases their decision. And yet, yesterday, the Homeland Security came out. And they didn't really point out the anarchists. They didn't point out the left. Again, they said, there is some on both sides of the issue.
Well, I would like to see that.
JOSH: Look. Here's the thing. You and I both review the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution obviously does provide you with the Constitutional right to peaceably voice your opinion in the street, on a sidewalk. And so forth.
What it does not allow you to do, is to issue threats or to act violently, or to try to tear down institutions of governments. And, therefore, violate the most sacrosanct, rudimentary principles in the rule of law.
I think another takeaway though, that I have from this. And I think back to the leak that just happened a little over a month ago now, in early May, when Politico released it. Because we've been in uncharted waters since then, right? This just simply never happens in modern Supreme Court dates. The very fact that it was leaked in the first place, I think is the biggest assault on the court's institutional legitimacy over the past half century, full century. Go back as (talking over), obviously. And the fact that we have not discovered the identity of the leaker is crazy. But I think back, the very night that that was released. It was a Monday in early May. I was at the time, watching very carefully. I was trying to see if any Democrats, MSNBC, left-wing cable news, talking head type figures, what if they condemned the leak? To this day, I haven't seen a single one. A single one.
GLENN: No. They praised the leaker.
JOSH: Yeah. Exactly. They are praising the leaker. They have directly abetted this culture. They really have. At this point, you're playing with fire. And every day, the Dobbs opinion is not released, I think.
Only exacerbates the threat to the justice of personal safety.
GLENN: So do you think -- I mean, the thing to do. Because they have a couple of really controversial things coming. And they're supposed to be come in the next few weeks. Usually, they leave the most controversial for the last. So they can just get on a plane and get out of town. But that's not going to help it. Why would they hold these things?
Just -- just release them.
JOSH: So generally speaking, that's what they do. You're right about that. They typically hold the highest profile opinions for the last week of the term. And that's not a legal thing. That's not like U.S. codes are not legally bound to do that. Just kind of the customs that they do that.
But in this particular case. Because, again, we are in you be chartered waters here. This has not happened, period, full stop. I and many others said, that if you care about the justice's personal safety. And, by the way, not just the justices. But also the Loefflers. I hate to make it personal. But I have a number of friends, who support this term.
Probably at least five, six, seven, personal friends who are clerking this term. I am worried about their personal safety too. People have tried to dox the identity of the clerks who are clerking for the conservative Supreme Court justice. I saw some horrible Instagram posts.
As you said, here are their names. Go find them. Just awful, awful stuff.
JOSH: And every day, that they don't go about releasing the Dobbs opinion, or at the bare minimum, Glenn. What I said, prior to the end. Probably what they should have done, is the very next day, or at least that week, they could have issued a one line sentence. That said, you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit is hereby overturned. And Roe vs. Wade is reversed. Opinions to follow. That is what they could have done. But they chose not to. And at this point, they're really, really playing with fire, and I just hope after today's horrible incident with Justice Kavanaugh. That the chief justice realizes that the moment is now to release this opinion. It is now.
GLENN: So two things, as we talk to Josh Hammer from Newsweek.
And I hate to say he's from Newsweek because he's one of us.
But the -- the -- the two questions that I have for you: Are this. I talked to Mike Lee. And he said, he thought that as soon as this court was finished this year. That we would know the name of the leaker. And he said, I hope, at worst, or at best. I guess. Would -- that they would be -- their law license would be taken away. They would never be able to practice again. Any kind of law. Anywhere in America.
I would hope that that would happen. I hope that more than that would happen. He said, they were waiting on that. Until they got all these -- he thought, it would come out the last day. So that, coupled with, he also said, he felt they knew pretty close if not right on, who that person -- who that person was.
Do you agree with that or not?
JOSH: So, first of all, Mike Lee, I respect so -- actually, my first year of law school summer. Actually, with the Loeffler kind of Senate judiciary staff, so I go pretty far back on these matters. It's always so valuable here. I want to agree with him. What he's saying, should be happening. That's exactly what should happen. The leaker should be disbarred. Should be formerly shunned. Unfortunately, I fear something, somewhat approximately in the exact opposite of that will happen. If my intuitions on this are correct. And it's a liberal clerk. It's someone from the Justice, Sotomayor's chamber in particular. Or perhaps Justice Kagan's or Justice Breyer's chambers.
What I predict will happen. The identity will be exposed. It's crazy it's not happened already. There's literally 37 law clerks here. Twelve from the liberal chambers. Not particularly big sample size. But then he probably will be exposed, assuming the marshal of the Supreme Court.
A woman named Dale Curly, is even remotely competent at her job. But what I predict will happen after that, is that the leaker will effectively try to forfeit, you know, will -- will forfeit some law firm career, perhaps.
But then we'll get like a very rich, kind of speaking MSNBC talking heads gig.
And frankly, it would not surprise me, if a top ten, top 20 law school actually hired her as a professor, or reproductive rights study. Fully constitutional field like that.
JOSH: So I want to agree with Senator Lee.
But I do fear something closely approximately the opposite might transpire.
GLENN: No. Yeah. My gut tells me the same thing. The last thing. God forbid somebody kills one of these justices.
And kills a conservative. That means Biden gets to pick the next justice. Which would change the balance of the court. And would absolutely set the country on fire.
On fire. What do we do to make sure that these guys are safe?
And I say that about both sides. I don't want either side that experienced violence or threats. What do we do?
JOSH: So one thing that has been pointed out here. I could be wrong. I don't think any of the nine justices actually live in the District of Columbia. I shouldn't say that.
It's possible that Sotomayor. The vast majority of them live in Maryland or Virginia. Where it's worth pointing out, despite those being in recent years, light blue states.
Both those states have Republican governors. It's Glenn Youngkin in Virginia. It's Larry Hogan in Maryland.
So in a situation like this, where the federal government is just completely dropping the ball. They're just not going to prosecute. If they're not going to send out whatever kind of DOJ, kind of FBI mercenaries, that they would need to send out. That the onus can and should fall on Governor Hogan and Governor Youngkin, to do what has to be done, a state national guard level or something like that.
It's unfortunate, it's hardly the first time that governors have had to kind of step up, and the federal government -- I think about the immigration on the southern border, of course.
I mean, whether it's Texas or Arizona. Any of these border states. I mean, whenever the federal government, failed to do its job, it's incumbent upon the states to do that job for them.
I go all the way back to the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case. Arizona versus the United States.
It was kind of the whole point to Justice Scalia's remarkable dissent in that case, exactly.
He basically said that at the time, when Arizona was doing with the statute of illegal immigration, was its constitutional prerogative. And, indeed, its duty. The federal government failed to do its job. In that case, to secure the border. The states must and can step up.
So I think something similar could and should happen with respect to Maryland and Virginia, if the federal government fails.
GLENN: Okay. Josh, can you hang on for one quick second. I got to take a quick break