REPORT: Conservative Supreme Court Justices Being Targeted at Their Homes By Pro-Abortion Protesters

WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Leftist activists are directing protestors to confront conservative Supreme Court Justices at their homes in Maryland and Virginia.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch are all targets by an organization called, “Ruth Sent Us.” The organization has published the justices’ supposed home addresses online for the radical protestors to locate.

Ruth seems to be a reference to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a ardent defender of the right to abortion. But this group’s use of her name is ironic, because Ginsburg was very collegial with her conservatives colleagues, including her best friend, Justice Antonin Scalia, and because Ginsburg criticized Roe as a bad decision, despite agreeing with its conclusion.

“Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights,” the group’s website states. “We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.”

The website also asked protestors to “rise up May 8-15 and beyond… At the homes of the six extremist justices, three in Virginia and three in Maryland.” The site says the main protest is scheduled for May 11.

It is not the first time radical-left organizations have mobilized to intimidate political opponents at their homes. In September, protestors under the banner of ShutDownDC picketed outside Kavanaugh’s home to express angst against pro-life laws. In January, the same organization was also responsible for the protests outside Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) home in Virginia.

“Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel,” Hawley said at the time. “They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.”

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday admitted the left’s radical protestors may turn violent against the justices in the coming days. “We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times,” the board penned.

The potential violence follows a Monday Supreme Court leak that revealed Roe v. Wade may be overturned. “Our guess is that the leak is likely to backfire at the Court,” the Journal continued.

“A Justice who switched his or her vote now would be open to ridicule for wilting under pressure,” the Journal added. “It would also invite more leaks in the future by showing they get results. A pattern of pre-emptive leaks of draft opinions would destroy the Court.”

Breitbart’s Wendell Husebo contributed to the contents of this report.

TRUMP EFFECT: General Motors’ shares fall after Trump threatens to cut its subsidies in retaliation for layoffs

WASHINGTON — General Motors’ stock fell more than 3 percent on Tuesday after President Donald Trump tweeted that he would consider pulling General Motors’ subsidies in response to the company’s announcement that it plans to reduce production at several facilities and lay off more than 14,000 people.

“Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland. Nothing being closed in Mexico & China,” the president tweeted Tuesday. “The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get!”

“We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including for electric cars,” Trump continued. “General Motors made a big China bet years ago when they built plants there (and in Mexico) – don’t think that bet is going to pay off. I am here to protect America’s Workers!”

The drop in the automaker’s shares represented the company’s worst financial day in more than a month.

In a statement released by it’s corporate office, General Motors said it is “committed to maintaining a strong manufacturing presence in the U.S.” and added that “many of the U.S. workers impacted by [plant closures] will have the opportunity to shift to other GM plants.”

“We appreciate the actions this administration has taken on behalf of the industry to improve the overall competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing,” the company said, without addressing the president’s comments directly.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Trump pressured the company to keep the Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland facilities open and warned it against moving operations overseas.

“They better damn well open a new plant [in Ohio] very quickly,” Trump told the Journal. He said he told the company that “you’re playing around with the wrong person.”



POTUS v SCOTUS: Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments over Trump travel ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Wall Street Journal) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether President Donald Trump can legally restrict entry to the U.S. for travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, tackling a central issue of his presidency.

The case traces back to a defining moment in Mr. Trump’s campaign, when he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” That idea evolved through three travel bans of varying character and severity, the latest issued in September 2017.

The ban has become more measured in some respects, as the White House has sought to withstand legal scrutiny, though the current travel prohibitions have no expiration date, a contrast from the temporary nature of the earlier bans.

To prevail, the government may have to persuade the justices that the current order is untainted by religious bias, contrary to the findings of some lower courts. The administration also will assert that the ban is needed to help prevent terrorist attacks.

Clarifying the scope of the president’s power over immigration and national-security policy is a momentous task in itself. But in a matter so closely tied to Mr. Trump’s own instincts and style, the case amounts to something of a personal test for the president, as well as a legal one.

While the dispute involves a number of familiar legal questions involving the interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions, Mr. Trump’s habit of regularly tweeting and otherwise declaring his opinions has added additional dimensions.

“One is the question of when the executive can free itself from the taint of earlier remarks or earlier actions, because if you pretend there were no campaign promises of a Muslim ban and there was no Version 1.0 of a travel ban, the administration’s position looks a lot better,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court has tread carefully when considering a handful of preliminary matters involving the travel ban and other disputed Trump administration policies, suggesting the justices may be reluctant to pare back Mr. Trump’s authority in ways that could curtail the powers of future presidents.

Read more at The Wall Street Journal



WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump on Thursday directly accused the Obama Administration of improper surveilling of the American people and said he wants answers as to who was behind it.

“The big story is the ‘unmasking and surveillance’ of people that took place during the Obama Administration,” the president tweeted in response to the announcement that subpoenas had been issued seeking records from U.S. spy agencies about Obama officials’ direct requests.

According to a report published by The Wall Street Journal (, The House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas on Wednesday including one to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and another to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen in relation to its probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

According to the Journal report, the panel was seeking specifics on the agencies’ “unmasking” procedures amid revelations that American citizens were improperly identified as a bi-product of government spying. Other agencies reportedly subpoenaed were the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA.

A source close to the case says the NSA, FBI and CIA subpoenas directly relate to former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, ex-CIA director John Brennan and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

Rice, who has remained a central target of the investigation, has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, but the president and his administration clearly disagree.

In addition to the subpoenas, the Intelligence Committee sent a letter to former White House press aide Boris Epshteyn asking him to voluntarily submit any and all information he is in possession of regarding the matter.

“Like many others, Mr. Epshteyn has received a broad, preliminary request for information from the House Intelligence Committee,” an attorney for Epshteyn told the Journal. “This is a voluntary request. Mr. Epshteyn has not been subpoenaed, nor do we anticipate that he will be.”

The expansion in the committee’s investigation comes after months of accusations by Democrats that president Trump and key members of his campaign staff colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

To date, no evidence has surfaced to support the allegations and the president has repeatedly denied those claims.