(Tony Sifert, Headline USA) On the House floor Tuesday and again in an interview with Fox News, Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., accused Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of delaying a bill providing extra security for Supreme Court Justices in order to protect the identity of the clerk who leaked Justice Alito’s Roe-overturning opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“I do think I know why this bill had to be delayed . . . that is because you want to protect the leaker, and that implies that although this has been pending for a month and a half, somebody knows who the leaker was, and that’s who you want to protect,” Bishop told Democrat members of the House of Representatives.
The bill in question — the Supreme Court Police Parity Act — finally passed Tuesday, with 27 Democrats voting against protecting conservative members of the Supreme Court from violence by pro-abortion domestic terrorist groups like Ruth Sent Us and leftist assassins like Nicholas Roske.
According to The Hill, the monthlong delay in passing the bill resulted from House Democrats’ demands for “an expanded bill that also offered protections to Supreme Court staff, including judicial clerks.”
In an appearance on Fox News after the vote, Bishop again raised the question of why the Democrats delayed adopting the new security measures.
“You gotta wonder if there is any bottom to their conduct,” Bishop said.
“The notion was they wanted to extend the protection to the families of the clerks . . . if that’s the case, it seems like they know the identity of the leaker,” he continued.
Bishop’s comments echoed those of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who accused Pelosi of “jeopardizing people’s lives.”
“If you change the bill, you’re trying to kill it and delay it,” McCarthy said. “You’re playing more games than anyone in this country can understand.”
Apparently shamed by Pelosie’s conduct, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that he could not explain why Democrats had delayed for so long.
“I can’t really give you an explanation, because adding more employees doesn’t seem like a very controversial thing to do,” Hoyer told The Hill.
