A chilling admission surfaced from Michigan State Senator and U.S. Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow, revealing a disturbing hypothetical scenario involving Supreme Court Justices. During a recent campaign event, she openly discussed a potential loss of control if confronted by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.
The exchange began with a question from the audience regarding the effectiveness of contacting the Supreme Court about pressing national issues. McMorrow responded with a personal anecdote, quickly escalating into a startling declaration of potential violence.
She recounted hearing about Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett attending a tailgate party, then stated, “I would not be able to control myself. That would be bad. There would be beers thrown in people’s faces.” The remark drew immediate and widespread concern.
This statement carries significant weight given the current climate of heightened security threats against Supreme Court justices. They have already faced credible dangers, including protests at their private residences and online harassment campaigns.
The revelation sparked outrage, with critics pointing to a double standard in media coverage. Had a Republican candidate made similar remarks about liberal justices, the response would likely have been overwhelmingly negative and calls for resignation immediate.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee swiftly condemned McMorrow’s words, questioning her suitability for a U.S. Senate seat and suggesting she “needs help.” The incident raises serious questions about the rhetoric employed by political candidates.
McMorrow’s own published work, a book titled “Hate Won’t Win: Find Your Power and Leave This Place Better Than You Found It,” adds a layer of irony to the situation. The contrast between her written message and her expressed sentiments is stark.
The incident underscores a growing concern about the increasingly polarized political landscape and the potential for rhetoric to incite real-world harm. It demands a serious conversation about responsible political discourse and the boundaries of acceptable expression.
