ContributorsPublishersAdvertisers

Rep. Raúl Grijalva votes against enhanced Supreme Court security bill

AZCentral | The Arizona Republic
AZCentral | The Arizona Republic
 2022-06-15

https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3XPAZ1_0gBUwmfE00

Rep. Raúl Grijalva was one of the 27 Democrats who voted against a bill that would augment security for Supreme Court justices.

The bill, which already has passed the Senate and President Joe Biden has indicated he would sign, passed the House Tuesday on a 396-27 vote.

The legislation would expand security to the justice's immediate relatives. A prior House version of the bill also included security for the staffers of Supreme Court justices, which Senate Republicans opposed.

Their exclusion from protection, Grijalva said, is why he voted against the bill.

"I am concerned at the speed which Republicans are willing to act to protect the Supreme Court, but not the lives of children from gun violence," Grijalva, D-Ariz., told The Arizona Republic in a written statement. "The Supreme Court justices would continue to have federal protection without this legislation. I voted against the Senate version of the bill because it did not go far enough to extend protections to Supreme Court justice employees and the rest of federal bench."

The House passed the legislation after a man was arrested June 8 near Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's Maryland home . Nicholas John Roske of California had a Glock pistol, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, hammer and a crowbar, USA TODAY reported. According to police, he said he wanted to "kill" a justice and was angry about the leaked Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade. The 1973 landmark case resulted in women being able to legally seek an abortion nationally.

Tara Kavaler is a politics reporter at The Arizona Republic. She can be reached by email at tara.kavaler@arizonarepublic.com or on Twitter @kavalertara.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Rep. Raúl Grijalva votes against enhanced Supreme Court security bill

Comments / 4

Comments / 0