Twenty-two Democrats who last year voted to increase their own protection vote against giving Supreme Court Justices the same


The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the author, a current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

WASHINGTON, DC- They hypocrisy of Democrats knows no bounds. That much became even more obvious Tuesday when 27 House Democrats voted no on a bill which would expand security protections for Supreme Court justices, Fox News reports.

The vote came after Speaker Nancy Pelosi had sat on the bill, passed unanimously in the Senate, for at least a couple of weeks.

Making the no votes even more egregious, 22 of the 27 who voted against protecting Supreme Court justices voted themselves extra protection in the wake of THE GREAT “INSURRECTION” OF 2021.

The vote came less than a week after a man was arrested for showing up at the home of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the intention to kill him and possibly his wife and two young daughters.

The bill, which provides for 24-hour protection for the justices and their families, will now go to the desk of Joe Biden who is expected to sign it.

The vote passed 396-27 with all Republicans voting in favor. The bill was initially passed by unanimous consent in the Senate days after a leaked draft opinion suggested the high court was poised to overturn the controversial Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

If it is overturned, the abortion question will be returned to individual states where it belongs.

Some of those who voted against the Supreme Court Police Parity Act claimed they did so because it didn’t include protections for court staff, including clerks (one of whom is believed to have leaked the draft decision illegally) and their families as well as all federal judges.

That wasn’t a concern last year when many of those same hypocrites voted on an expanded $1.9 billion budget to expand Capitol security following the “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021. That measure barely passed the House with no Republicans (not even RINOs Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) voting in favor.

That bill included millions of dollars for additional security for federal judges and members of Congress, including in their district offices throughout the US and travel security for members as well.

Two of those who voted to protect their own asses last year but voted against protecting Supreme Court justices are Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Veronica Escobar (R-TX), who last year wrote Pelosi after the Jan. 6 incident demanding increased funds be allocated to their Members’ Representational Allowances (MRAs) to pay for personal security in their home districts by hiring local law enforcement and other security personnel.

Pelosi disagreed however saying that MRAs shouldn’t be tapped for additional security, and that a supplemental bill would be necessary. Just months later, Jayapal, Escobar and twenty other members who voted against Tuesday’s bill were more than happy to vote in favor of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to protect themselves. Because they’re really important.

A number of New Jersey representatives who voted against the bill explained their reasoning in a press release:

“We fully support expanding security for Supreme Court Justices and their families. We also firmly believe that those expanded protections should apply to federal judges and their families, who face similar threats, with less protective resources,” read the joint press release signed by New Jersey Democrats Mikie Sherrill, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Albio Sires, Bill Pascrell, Tom Malinowski, and Josh Gottheimer.

“On July 19, 2020, a man who had appeared before Judge Esther Salas in her court came to her door dressed as a FedEx delivery man. He found her address with an easy online search. Her only child, 20-year-old Daniel, answered the door of her home and was shot 3 times and killed. Her husband was shot and is still recovering,” they wrote.

“We believe that Congress had a strong opportunity to improve protections for all federal judges, but the Senate abdicated its responsibility when it ignored our calls for the inclusion of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in this bill. We will not give up fighting for the necessary safeguards our federal judiciary deserves.”

One of the Democrats who voted to protect himself last year but voted against similar protections for Supreme Court Justices, Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) explained his vote to Fox News Digital:

“Supreme Court Justices are in the limelight as are Members of Congress and federal judges,” he wrote.

“These individuals, along with their families and staff members, regularly face threats of violence to themselves, their homes, their place of work, or in other public settings. While it is unfortunate any public official requires more security as they carry out their responsibilities and provide service to the public, we need to ensure adequate protections are provided for public officials—as well as family and staff members—who could be in harm’s way.”

Nice word salad there, Perlmutter.

Others took the occasion to whine about the Senate not acting to limit the Second Amendment rights of Americans, in this case Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV).

“As innocent lives are lost in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and everyday massacres, Republicans in the Senate acted swiftly on increasing security for the Supreme Court,” Horsford bemoaned in a statement to Fox News Digital. “They should act as swiftly to protect the innocent lives of our children and so many other victims of the gun violence that is occurring EVERY DAY throughout our country by passing common sense gun safety reforms that a vast majority of Americans support and demand.”

Okay, so you got that? Republicans won’t pass gun confiscation reforms so let’s risk our Supreme Court justices just to make a point. Got it.

In perhaps one of the most brain-dead, obtuse, and absurd reasonings for voting against the bill, Escobar’s takes the cake. While she didn’t respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, she told NBC News she voted against the bill because she wanted to add protection for abortion providers and “patients and staff who are vulnerable everyday especially because of the actions of this Supreme Court.”

Ms. Escobar might want to catch up on her news, because the only ones who have been made “vulnerable” to purported actions of the Supreme Court are pro-life interests, having had numerous locations firebombed or otherwise attacked over the past several weeks. In fact, pro-abortion zealots this week threatened additional violence against pro-life clinics and services.

The remainder of Democrats voting against the bill to protect Supreme Court justices is a who’s who of radical left lunatics, which includes:

Democrat Reps. Jamaal Bowman (NY), Cori Bush (MO), Barbara Lee (CA), Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), and Maxine Waters (CA).

You may recall Law Enforcement Today has previously reported (referenced below) on the substantial sums of money some of these members spend on their own security, with many of them otherwise calling to defund the police. Perhaps the biggest hypocrite is Bush, who according to Fox News spent over $300,000 on her security because, well she’s important…or something.

Waters has engaged in violent rhetoric of her own against public officials, urging a crowd several years ago to harass Trump administration officials wherever they were at, telling them to “push back on them. And tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Finally Instagram “star” Ocasio-Cortez said her vote was because the so-called “gun safety” bill was being stalled, Post Millennial reported.

“Oh, so we can pass protections for us and here easily, right? But we can’t pass protections for everyday people? I think not.”

No only for members of Congress who think they’re the important ones.

For more on the hypocritical Cori Bush, we invite you to:


After reports surfaced earlier in October detailing the latest campaign spending numbers that showed Rep. Cori Bush has shelled out over $130,000 for her personal security, the FEC data caused a resurfacing of her August interview where she defended her spending money on personal security while advocating for defunding the police.

On October 15th, new spending numbers released by the FEC detailed that Rep. Bush had spent an additional +$64,000 in private security, on top of the previously reported $70,000 that circulated this past August.

We at Law Enforcement Today had previously reported on Rep. Bush’s private security spending due to the glaring hypocrisy of her simultaneously calling to defund the police while she literally uses campaign money to enlist a private police force for herself.

When Rep. Bush was confronted this past August during a CBS interview over her funding personal security while actively championing the defunding of police, Rep. Bush had the following to say about the matter:

“They would rather I die? You would rather me die? Is that what you want to see? You want to see me die? You know, because that could be the alternative.

So either I spent $70,000 on private security over the last few months, and I’m here standing now and able to speak, able to help save 11 million people from being evicted. Or – I could possibly have a death attempt on my life.”

Rep. Bush continued during the interview, proclaiming that she was under threat from “the white supremacist racist narrative” and that her funding private security while calling to defund the police is because her “body is worth being on this planet right now.

She concluded with saying what she spends on personal security is irrelevant because she has “work to do” and that citizens need to “suck it up” because “defunding the police has to happen”:

“I’m gonna make sure I have security because I know I have had attempts on my life. And I have too much work to do, there are too many people that need help right now for me to allow that.

So if I end up spending $200,000, if I spend ten more dollars on it, you know what, I get to be here to do the work. So suck it up. Defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets.”

It’s hardly surprising to see that many look at the matter as being both hypocritical and completely tone deaf.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Back in July, we at Law Enforcement Today shared a report where Fox News host Trey Gowdy commented on this very topic of Rep. Bush funding personal security while wanting average citizens to be left devoid of the protections afforded by police.

Here’s that previous report.


Gowdy slams lawmakers’ double standards on defunding police efforts while funding private security for themselves

(Originally published July 28th, 2021)

Trey Gowdy from Fox News’ “Sunday Night in America” ripped into lawmakers that have been funding private security for themselves while they also attempt to defund the police for everyday citizens in America.

During the July 25th broadcast of “Sunday Night I America”, show host Trey Gowdy opened with how there are very real dangers that members of Congress can encounter while making public appearances:

“Members of Congress are spending more money than ever on their personal security. It’s a tragic reflection of the times we live in. Gabby Giffords was shot meeting with constituents in Arizona.

Steve Scalise was shot practicing for a charity baseball game. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle have been threatened with all manner of violence.”

After highlighting some of the unfortunate dangers with being a public official, Gowdy also pointed out that elected officials, like members of Congress, have no shortage of police and security at their fingertips:

“Members of Congress are allowed to spend campaign money on their safety. Some members of Congress even travel with personal security when they’re in their districts and states.

There’s also a police presence when requested for members of Congress. The Capitol itself is heavily guarded – police are everywhere – there are metal detectors and dogs trained to detect guns, and explosives and panic buttons and restricted access. You name it, and it’s there.”

But Gowdy then shifted to asking the audience whether they feel as safe, rhetorically asking whether an average citizen has a police presence or observable general safety measures that somewhat resemble that of an elected official’s:

“Safety is priority number one for members of Congress, as it should be. But what about you? Are you safe? Do you feel safe?

Could your neighborhood benefit from a greater police presence? Is your place of work armed with metal detectors and guard dogs? Are the streets you walk, and ride down lined with police cars? Do you have personal security when you travel?”

Gowdy brought the point home, noting that while he understands why members of Congress are concerned for their personal safety – and receive a quality of security unmatched to regular citizens – he can’t understand why those same Congress members would entertain lessening police availability for average citizens:

“I understand full well why members of Congress spend money on their personal safety. I just don’t understand why some members of Congress don’t feel the same way about your safety. If their safety is the highest priority, shouldn’t your safety be, too?”

One of the Congress members that Gowdy brought up was Rep. Cori Bush, one of the biggest proponents for defunding police, who seems to fancy the idea of police and security when it comes to her own wellbeing:

“Cori Bush represents St. Louis, Missouri in Congress. She wants to defund the police. Well, let me be more precise – she wants to defund your police. But not her police.

She spent nearly $70,000 on her own personal security last year. I don’t know about your city or state, but $70,000 would get you your own personal police officer in South Carolina – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

Gowdy capped the take off with noting that Congress members like Rep. Bush seem to think they’re better and more worthy of protection than regular Americans:

“Cori Bush tells us she’s progressive. The better word might be hypocritical. She wants to defund your police while she has a robust personal security detail in Washington and St. Louis. And that sends the clear message that her safety is more important than yours.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Rep. Cori Bush wants to ‘defund the police’, but spent taxpayer money on her private security

(Originally published June 5th, 2021)

MISSOURI– Democratic Missouri Rep. Cori Bush has been an outspoken advocate of the Black Lives Matter organization, and has openly pushed for the defunding of police.

Law Enforcement Today recently reported that Bush even went as far as to praise the Black Lives Matter activist who wished death upon police officers and said “fry ’em like bacon.”

It is very interesting, that a woman who feels such hatred for police officers, and pushed to defund them, used taxpayers money to hire them to protect her through a private security company, according to newly released Statement of Disbursements of the House records reviewed by the Daily Caller.

Bush, who has become the newest member of the hypocritical progressive-Democratic group in Congress known as “the Squad”, falls right in line with her fellow Congresswomen, as back in April, it was reported that they too spent thousands of campaign funds on private security protection for themselves.

According to the new Statement of Disbursements of the House records, Bush also spent taxpayer funds on a day of private security for herself between Jan. 1 to March 31, the Daily Caller reported.

On February 19, 2021, Bush reportedly spent $880.00 on private security services through RSAT Security Consulting LLC.

The company’s Facebook page says that RSAT Security Consulting is led by a team with “50+ years of experience across national security, energy security, police, and military security operations.”

RSAT’s Instagram page shows photos of police officers, military members, and members of the Secret Service.

Additionally, according to Bush’s April Quarterly 2021 financial report, she spent over $30,000 on her own private security, while demanding that police be defunded.

As the Daily Caller reported, Bush’s financial records show that:

  • On Jan. 18, 2021, Bush spent $1,060.00 on security from Whole Armor Executive Protection in Bowie, Maryland.
  • On Jan. 21, 2021, Bush spent $5,000 on security from Nathaniel Davis, Jr in her home state.
  • On Jan. 25, 2021, Bush spent $530.00 on security from Nathaniel Davis in Palo Alto, Calif.
  • On Feb. 17, 2021, Bush spent $7,743.75 on security from RS&T Security Counseling LLC in New York City.
  • On Feb. 25, 2021, Bush spent $5,000 on security from Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein & Birk in Washington DC.
  • On Feb. 26, 2021, Bush spent $5,812.00 on security from RS&T Security Counseling, LLC in NYC.
  • On March 15, 2021, Bush spent $5,000 on security from Nathaniel Davis Davis, in Saint Louis, Missouri.
  • On March 15, 2021, Bush spent $2,456.25 on security from RS&T Security Consulting LLC in NYC.

Bush even called out former President Barack Obama via Twitter for not defunding the police in December 2020, after Obama called the term “defund the police” a “snappy slogan”.

Bush said in the tweet:

“With all due respect, Mr. President—let’s talk about losing people. We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We’re losing our loved ones to police violence. It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police,” 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts