U.S. Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh fled a popular Washington, D.C., steak house after a group of protesters showed up, and social media users on Twitter instantly pounced to ridicule him.
Politico Playbook reported the justice had been dining at Morton's when the protesters arrived, and Kavanaugh snuck out a back door with his security detail after finishing his meal.
"We hear Kavanaugh snuck out the back with his security detail," tweeted the @ShutDown_DC account, which first reported the incident that Politico confirmed. "@mortons should be ashamed for welcoming a man who so clearly hates women."
The justice didn't find much sympathy on Twitter.
\u201cPolitico clutching pearls today after a handful of "unruly" protesters "targeted" Brett Kavanaugh by standing outside during his steak dinner.\n\nJust an absolutely terrifying night for Kavanaugh, who "did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert."\u201d— Andy Campbell (@Andy Campbell) 1657281111
\u201c@MollyJongFast Thoughts & prayers about Brett Kavanaugh having to leave out the back door before dessert.\u201d— Molly Jong-Fast (@Molly Jong-Fast) 1657281769
\u201c@craigcalcaterra You don't get to say there's no right to privacy and then complain about not getting privacy\u201d— Craig Calcaterra (@Craig Calcaterra) 1657281364
\u201cSorry, under the originalist reading of the Constitution there is no "right" to eat dinner. The Founding Fathers never spoke of a right to eat dinner, therefore the right does not exist.\u201d— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1657280182
\u201cthat's not a right. Brett Kavanaugh made it very clear that unless it's explicitly defined in the constitution, it's not a right.\u201d— Timothy Burke (@Timothy Burke) 1657280641
\u201cFor the record, the right to exit out the front door of a Morton\u2019s Steakhouse without having to see people who don\u2019t like you appears in the same provision of the Constitution that includes the Major Questions Doctrine and the Equal Dignity of the States.\u201d— Ian Millhiser (@Ian Millhiser) 1657283034
\u201cThe justice was denied his right to order overpriced tiramisu, assuming he even wanted dessert, what horror.\u201d— Gary Legum (@Gary Legum) 1657282299
\u201c**nods solemnly** A divided court found a limited \u201cright to party\u201d in the seminal 1987 case Beastie Boys v Your Teacher, with Chief Justice D writing that it applied in instances where petitioners showed they would \u201cfight for\u201d that right.\u201d— Matthew Gertz (@Matthew Gertz) 1657280810
\u201cI feel like I\u2019m saying this three times a week at this point, but the Supreme Court has been very clear that Americans are not entitled to avoid passing through sidewalk protests on the way to or from exercising rights of their own.\u201d— southpaw (@southpaw) 1657280946
\u201c@JoyceWhiteVance Sadly, the residual effects from this poor decision making is \npart of protesting. Business and commuting may feel it. \nMorton\u2019s might consider having a conversation with \nBrett Kavanaugh as to whether it\u2019s a good idea to dine there.\u201d— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1657277529