Mallory McMorrow Admits She Could Not Control Herself Around Conservative Justices

Let’s examine the facts here, because they are rather straightforward and deeply concerning.

Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan Democratic Senate candidate, was caught on video at a November 12 event hosted by Huron Valley Indivisible, where she openly fantasized about assaulting two sitting Supreme Court justices. Not suggested. Not implied. Explicitly stated.

When asked by an attendee about “dealing with the Supreme Court,” McMorrow launched into a revealing diatribe. As a Notre Dame graduate, she expressed fury that Justice Amy Coney Barrett attended the same institution. Then came the threat: upon hearing that Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh had attended a tailgate the previous weekend, McMorrow declared she “would not have been able to control myself.” She added, “That would be bad. There would be beers thrown in peoples’ faces.”

This is not hyperbole for effect. This is a sitting state senator and Democratic Senate primary candidate admitting she lacks the self-control to refrain from physically assaulting Supreme Court justices in public.

The logical inconsistencies here are staggering. The same political movement that spent years lecturing Americans about threats to democratic institutions and the importance of respecting judicial independence now celebrates candidates who openly discuss assaulting justices whose rulings they dislike. The same party that manufactured outrage over peaceful protests now shrugs at explicit threats of violence against the judiciary.

Let’s be clear about what this represents. Federal law explicitly prohibits intimidating or threatening federal judges. Title 18, Section 1503 of the United States Code makes it a crime to threaten or intimidate court officers. While McMorrow’s comments may not rise to the level of criminal conduct, they certainly demonstrate a temperament wholly unsuited for the United States Senate.

This is also worth noting: McMorrow’s anger stems from disagreement with judicial decisions, particularly regarding abortion. But here is the inconvenient truth the left refuses to acknowledge. Barrett and Kavanaugh, along with their colleagues in the majority on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, did not ban abortion. They returned the question to the states, where it constitutionally belongs. That is not judicial activism. That is judicial restraint.

The response from McMorrow’s campaign and Democratic allies has been predictably tepid. Rather than unequivocal condemnation of threatening language toward Supreme Court justices, we see deflection and rationalization. This double standard is precisely what erodes public trust in institutions.

Remember, this is the same political party that expressed horror when a man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home with weapons and zip ties, allegedly planning to assassinate him. That incident should have prompted universal condemnation of all rhetoric that could inspire violence against justices. Instead, we have Democratic Senate candidates casually discussing assault.

The facts matter here. McMorrow is not some fringe activist shouting from the sidelines. She is an elected state senator seeking higher office. Her comments reflect either genuine violent impulses or a calculated appeal to a base that celebrates such sentiments. Neither option is acceptable.

Americans deserve senators who understand that disagreeing with judicial decisions does not justify threatening judges. This is basic civics. This is fundamental to the rule of law. And this is apparently too much to ask from Michigan Democrats.