94

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

During a rare appearance by justices before Congress, Barrett said she had to take a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

She and Justice Elena Kagan testified before appropriations panels in the House and Senate in support of a request to increase security funding for members of the nation’s highest court.

Judges around the country have seen a rise in threats of violence and intimidation, including fake 911 swatting calls and pizza deliveries in the name of a judge’s murdered son.

Kagan condemned political rhetoric that turns up the temperature.

“Whatever political figure says them, whatever party that political figure is a member of, these statements are really unhelpful,” she said. “They’re dangerous in terms of individual justices’ security.”

The hearings came two weeks after the conservative-majority court finished handing down a series of major opinions, including a decision that increased President Donald Trump’s power over federal regulatory agencies and another that rejected his wide-ranging tariffs, sparking harsh personal criticism.

It was the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019, and the two justices are faced wide-ranging questions about the court’s work.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 94 points 3 days ago

Maybe if 2/3rds of them weren't busy being actively evil they wouldn't have to worry...

[-] ryper@lemmy.ca 44 points 3 days ago

Barrett in particular is probably targeted because she's occasionally not evil and some people see that as a betrayal.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

Which do you hate more the constant buzzing noise your car makes or the occasional annoying noise it makes at random? Barrett is that occasional annoying noise.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 2 points 3 days ago

I was gonna say the liberals must be in more danger

[-] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 34 points 3 days ago

I'm sorry, are they scared there might be accountability?

Have you tried not dismantling the constitution, repealing human rights, denying people's existence, bringing back Jim Crow, and protecting criminals?

Try doing your job and maybe corruption won't catch up to you.

If they read the Declaration they should know that it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish a tyrannical government. Don't fucking cry when people want to hold your tyranny to account.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago

If they actually enforced the Constitution and defended the laws as they swore to, they wouldn't need security. Traitors to the people should fear the people.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

It's more likely that the death threats are coming from those who think the Supremes aren't tearing down democracy and the rule of law fast enough.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Or that the "death threats" are as imaginary as antifa terrorists.

[-] aramis87@fedia.io 35 points 3 days ago

a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

Well, a sharp increase in SC decisions targeting my family and community is increasingly encroaching on our lives as well, maybe we could get some protection from them.

[-] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 40 points 3 days ago

Stop killing the country, and stop your life time appointment coworkers from slaughtering all of our rights.

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 8 points 3 days ago

It's like they want to play the victim while allowing immigrants to be hunted by ICE goons.

[-] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago

All the justices live in a different world than us.
They have a lifetime guaranteed job.
Incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get fired.
All expenses paid.
All healthcare paid.
Bribes and non cash payments (boats, etc).
No matter what they're all millionaires.

Fuck em

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 days ago

Have they tried not actively undermining democracy so that people aren’t dreaming of guillotines? Have they studied history like at all?

There’s a clear solution here, and it’s as simple as caring about the people they’re meant to serve.

[-] BigPotato@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

If you don't give us the ballot, expect the bayonet.

Sounds like they're already expecting the bayonet, so the ballot must be already fixed.

[-] crank0271@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

You didn't expect you would have to explain the Second Amendment to your children?

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Aim for the head, got it

[-] sprigatito@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 days ago

It's extremely ironic that she has to wear a bulletproof vest, especially so since the Supreme Court is saying civillians should be able to own guns.

Like if you didn't want to wear one, maybe don't give people tools, which can be used to threaten any public official.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago

Imagine the lack of social awareness you have to complain about affording protections that a lot of dead children never had because of gun violence; except yours is perceived, while theirs was (and is) very real.

~I could not be more ashamed.~

~But I’m sure the universe is waiting in the wings to prove me wrong.~

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 17 points 3 days ago

Their salaries and all of their kickbacks are several multiple times the minimum wage.

If they feel like their safety is at risk, stop doing things that can jeopardize their safety, and pay for their own security.

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

“Our fascist tyranny is making us targets!” - the SCOTUS

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 12 points 3 days ago

You must respect your social betters.

Living in fear for your life is for peasants, not nobles.

[-] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 12 points 3 days ago

HMMMMmm now maybe, Juuust maybe, people are mad because you're a piece of shit cancer that is dragging the rest of us down with your corrupt behavior so we would prefer to remove you?

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago

I agree that no one should fear for their life because of their job, but maaaaybe if you did your job to serve the people instead of the oligarchs you wouldn't need to be protected from it.

[-] Triumph@fedia.io 6 points 3 days ago

Yeah, see, they're not in fear because of their job; they're in fear because of how badly they're fucking it up. This fear is deserved.

[-] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If your decisions didn't try to rewrite the constitution and existing laws you wouldn't need the extra security.

Heck if you'd actually justify your decisions you wouldn't need security

[-] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I can't help but feel that the sort of person who would be likely to try and harm a member of the Supreme Court is busy at home, furiously masturbating over the Court's recent decisions.

"Racial profiling, so hot... Oh God, oh God is that the Shadow Docket? Yes, yes!"

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Ironically, although they will not admit this. The people they're hurting are not the ones trying to kill them. It's the ones Trump sends when they follow the constitution instead of their orders.

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

I fucking hate these assholes, yeah even the “good” ones. They deserve to live in fear.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Like congress has the power to set budgets in 2026. They should be beseeching the king directly. Bring gold.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Good. I hope you and everyone like you are permanently afraid and uncomfortable.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Uh oh, our window is closing

[-] MML@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Oh the pizza thing is funny

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
94 points (96.1% liked)

politics

30435 readers
3185 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS