Poll: Harassing justices backfires

Handmaid's Tale is at Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home. pic.twitter.com/mCQrrgo4Lt

— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) May 11, 2022

Immediately following the disclosure of Justice Sam Alito's draft of the reversal of Roe, the media cheered protests at the homes of the five justices for reversal and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Zeeshan Aleem of MSNBC wrote, "Centrist and conservative commentators are saying the recent pro-abortion rights protests outside the houses of conservative Supreme Court justices have crossed a line. These are mobs of harassers who have breached the acceptable parameters of protest, critics contend. But such arguments rest in large part on the myth of an apolitical judiciary. Looked at another way, the protests are salutary rather than destructive, bringing something to bear upon the court that by design it has been always been shielded from: democratic energy."

The Biden administration also supported the protests, even though federal law bans such demonstrations.

But the media quickly changed its tune this week. Jeff Bezos is not pleased. The Washington Post's Marc Thiessen wrote, "Protesting at justices' homes is illegal. What is Biden doing about it?"

So what changed the media's mind?

Polls.

I do not have access to their internal polls, but the Trafalgar Group made public answers to its national poll question: "Do you believe that publishing the home addresses of the five U.S. Supreme Court Justices and calling for protests at their private homes is an acceptable way to protest the High Court’s upcoming decision on Roe v. Wade?"

76% said NO.

Only 16% said yes.

Among Democrats, 67% said NO. Only 21% said yes.

The protesters are on the wrong side of public opinion -- and in more than one way. Not only does the public not like their protests, the public disagrees with the protesters on abortion.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen wrote, "Why Overturning Roe May Help Republicans A Lot More Than It Helps Democrats.

"65% of voters think abortion laws should be established by voters and their elected representatives. That’s exactly what will happen if Roe is overturned."

Rasmussen does not just look at his numbers on a spreadsheet. He thinks.

He wrote, "With Roe in place, the abortion laws are set by judges. However, 65% of voters think abortion laws should be established by voters and their elected representatives. That’s exactly what will happen if Roe is overturned. Just 18 percent want to preserve the status quo.

"If Democrats truly believed voters were with them on this issue, they would celebrate this triumph of democracy. Instead, they are outraged. Perhaps they recognize that overturning Roe will call their bluff and highlight the unpopularity of their policy desires."

I agree. And I apply this logic to the media. If they thought the protests worked, they would still be behind them.

Both the media and Democrats are out of step with the public. Rasmussen took a good look at the Democrat proposal to codify Roe. It went well beyond Roe.

He wrote, "The bill would make abortion legal at any point during the pregnancy, up to the moment of birth. That extreme position, now embraced by President Joe Biden, is supported by only 17% of voters. The vast majority — 72% —reject that extreme position."

Only three places I know of allow this: Red China, North Korea and New York.

I am with the 38% who say no to abortion.

And I definitely am with the 76% who say no to harassing justices at their homes. Nice to see the Washington Post now agrees.