SCOTUS pushes to hire additional security forces

Officials within the Supreme Court are pushing for more armed security guards as political violence in the U.S. continues to rise and play out all over the U.S.

In a current push to hire more security workers, the nation’s highest court produced a Hollywood-esque slow-motion video of males in fits and sun shades strolling as they usher people into armored SUVs. Another shot reveals security canines sniffing while an assault rifle-toting guard retains watch.

While the video appears to evoke a Hollywood-style movie about secret service brokers, it was truly posted on YouTube and is an element of SCOTUS’s aggressive push to get more safety. The video ends with the tagline “The highest court. A higher calling.”

It was reported that, while the SCOTUS police force has been fewer than 200 officers, over the past few years, the number has begun to expand and has doubled. The courts’ push for more security comes as threats against the judges have increased substantially.

“The justices are averse to the intrusion into their personal lives that comes with elevated security, but they’re resigned to the need for it both personally and for the court as an establishment,” one former SCOTUS staffer told Politico. SCOTUS has yet to issue an official statement.

Just as SCOTUS has cloaked its deliberations in secrecy and forbidden cameras in the courtroom, court officials are equally loath to discuss the security arrangements currently being implemented. The plea for heightened security comes with its own financial and logistical challenges for the highest court.

Some of the justices have complained that their growing security has complicated their lives, limited their ability to go places, and changed the way they interact with public figures. Currently, the approval rating of SCOTUS sits at a precarious 46 percent as demand for greater transparency and accountability within Washington.

Congress has also grown tired of the secrecy emanating from the court and has demanded that it explain the cost of maintaining protection for the officials. Congressional members have also demanded to know how officials have decided the level of protection needed.

“We provide money for the Supreme Court,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in April. “They’ve never come up and tell us what they’re doing with the money that we appropriate.”

It comes after SCOTUS handed the Trump administration a major defeat, ruling that states can count late-arriving mail-in ballots and striking down the Trump administration-backed challenge.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that election officials can count mail-in ballots that come after Election Day if they were postmarked beforehand. The ruling rejects the Republican National Committee’s challenge to a Mississippi law that allowed mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrived five business days after an election, provided they were postmarked by election day.

Eighteen states and territories have implemented mail-in ballot grace periods, with the majority of participating states Democratic-led, such as California, Illinois, and New York. Twelve other states have grace periods for ballots that are cast outside the U.S., such as by members of the military.

The ruling was penned by Trump administration-appointed Justice Amy Comey Barnett. “The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter,” the bulk held in the ruling.