biden regime is brazenly refusing to enforce fed law re: attempting to intimidate SC judges to sway ruling

The biden regime is not enforcing valid U.S. laws it doesn't want to enforce.  But according to the Constitution, "faithfully enforcing the laws" is one of the president's duties.

The proof--if anyone needed more--is that the regime has taken no action to arrest or charge the organizers of the clearly illegal protests outside the homes of only conservative SC justices--protests intended to intimidate the justices to switch votes on Roe.

Leftist groups published the addresses of the conservative justices.  The leftist pro-abortion group "Ruth Sent Us" even published the address of Amy Coney-Barrett's church and her kids' school.  Naked threats.  Garland did nothing.

There is only one reason for the Left to publish the addresses of Coney-Barrett's church and kids' school: to encourage howling leftist mobs to descend on both, in a clear effort to intimidate Coney-Barrett into switching her vote.

Not a single Democrat pol has condemned even one of these illegal acts, instead bleating that everyone has a right to protest whenever and wherever they like.  Free speech, comrade!

Except there is a specific federal law that says you can't protest outside the homes of judges to influence a decision.  And the reasoning is obvious: the Supreme Court can't be overruled, so rational people want judges to decide cases based on the Constitution rather than by being intimidated.

Democrats disagree.  Psaki cunningly, coyly said "The president has no opinion on where people protest."  On the steps of the Supreme Court, Dem senate majority leader Chuck Schumer threatened Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name for their position on Roe.
  >> “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 know what hit you.”

Chief Justice John Roberts condemned Schumer's threat as dangerous, to which Schumer replied he was “misinterpreted,” that he meant Republicans would suffer.  Only a Democrat would find that explanation persuasive.

If you're not clear on that, imagine how fast Garland would have had the FBI at your door if a conservative threatened any of the liberal justices in any of the ways listed above.

An honest Media would condemn these obviously criminal acts and threats, but American media isn't remotely honest.  They support Democrats (unless a Dem votes against a Democrat bill, as Manchin did).  The Media has always supported Dems, which may explain why most Americans have never heard of the law cited above.

In a bipartisan display of concern, the Senate passed a bill to extend around-the clock security protection to the justices’ families.  Democrats in the House have refused to pass it.

Not one single Democratic leader has spoken out in opposition to the terroristic actions against the Court.

The leftist organizations mounting these illegal protests know they can get away with breaking the law because of who Garland and his boss are:  corrupt, unscrupulous hacks.  They also know that they don't have to be concerned that conservatives might do the same to intimidate liberal justices, because conservatives know they'd be arrested and held without charge for months "while the government prepares charges."  Uh-huh.  Sure.

Biden has not only failed to condemn this outrageous behavior, he doubled down on it. In a fawning, softball propaganda bit with Jimmy Kimmel, biden predicted a “mini-revolution” if the court overturns Roe.

If a lot of this is news to you, you can thank the media, which has deliberately hidden it.  They don't want you to know that biden and garland have deliberately decided to ignore yet another valid federal law to avoid having to arrest their supporters.  The Media defend this lawbreaking--and the regime's failure to enforce laws intended to keep the court impartial--by claiming it’s just some people doing some things because they are “passionate” about the cause.

If the GOP wins control of the House in November, it would be revealing to compel Garland to testify before a House committee on why he failed to enforce the clear federal law barring protests around justices' homes intended to influence their decision on the case.