Protesters outside several conservative SC justices residences
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
I suppose like the way election workers, secretaries of state, school board members hounded and threatened by the new brown shirts, and most conservatives didn't feel it a big deal. Let's stop this for all.
Conservatives didn't feel that a big deal because that basically didn't happen. More media lies.
How did you feel about your freedum buddies protesting in front of Dougie's home annoying Doug and the neighbors?
It's actually a Federal Offence 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 to protest outside of a Federal Judges residence in order to influence their decisions.
Don't believe me? Maybe the LEFTY Washington Post's opinion might interest the RIGHTIES
Leave the justices alone at home
"....To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary. Critics of reversing Roe maintain, defensibly, that to overturn such a long-standing precedent would itself violate core judicial principles. Yet if basic social consensus and the rule of law are to be sustained — and if protesters wish to maximize their own persuasiveness — demonstrations against even what many might regard as illegitimate rulings must respect the rights of others. And they must be lawful...
.....A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action."
Don't believe me? Maybe the LEFTY Washington Post's opinion might interest the RIGHTIES
Leave the justices alone at home
"....To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary. Critics of reversing Roe maintain, defensibly, that to overturn such a long-standing precedent would itself violate core judicial principles. Yet if basic social consensus and the rule of law are to be sustained — and if protesters wish to maximize their own persuasiveness — demonstrations against even what many might regard as illegitimate rulings must respect the rights of others. And they must be lawful...
.....A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action."
Really? Or do you just like to live in the past?
"White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”
This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday."
So video of one side is fake, video of the other is not. Just trying to understand.
It's constitutionally protected, Kirky.
Just like your asshole, anti abortion buddies protested outside abortion clinics and harassed and threatened the patients and staff. You righties are all about the fucking constitition. So suck it the fuck up when the left does it too.
Plenty of videos, Kirk. You can't live in Denial-ville all the time. Or maybe you can.
Hate to disagree with you Counsellor but I think picketing Judges is illegal.
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
it's NOT constitutionally protected. The protests targeting judges are an exemption and quite illegal.
Don't support that. Just like I didn't support the Toronto Star and other publications snooping around the house of Rob Ford when he was Mayor.
OK so if that's the case why haven't the activists been removed. If anything they are planning to ramp up the protests.
The examples of these are few and far between. Furthermore, they didn't invade the privacy of the individual by showing up at their place of residence.
I'm still at home Kirk. Just heading into work at the White House and I'll ask Joe.
Because the attempts to intimidate judges are serving the "right cause ". Just like fire bombing an anti abortion facility is not terrorism, but simply (mostly peaceful) arson.
MOSTLY PEACEFUL: Pro-Abortion Extremists Firebomb Pro-Life Office
Pro-abortion extremists apparently firebombed a pro-life advocacy group's office in Madison, Wis., days after a leaked decision revealed that the Supreme Court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade next month.
freebeacon.com
I agree! Their decision was a poor one and will have many negative consequences. It should be protested. But not in front of their homes. That is just coercion and intimidation. The judiciary must be able to fulfill its role free of these threats.It's actually a Federal Offence 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 to protest outside of a Federal Judges residence in order to influence their decisions.
Don't believe me? Maybe the LEFTY Washington Post's opinion might interest the RIGHTIES
Leave the justices alone at home
"....To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary. Critics of reversing Roe maintain, defensibly, that to overturn such a long-standing precedent would itself violate core judicial principles. Yet if basic social consensus and the rule of law are to be sustained — and if protesters wish to maximize their own persuasiveness — demonstrations against even what many might regard as illegitimate rulings must respect the rights of others. And they must be lawful...
.....A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action."
It's not intimidation. The judges will have an army of cops to escort them. It's just letting them know that popular feelings are high.Because the attempts to intimidate judges are serving the "right cause ". Just like fire bombing an anti abortion facility is not terrorism, but simply (mostly peaceful) arson.
MOSTLY PEACEFUL: Pro-Abortion Extremists Firebomb Pro-Life Office
Pro-abortion extremists apparently firebombed a pro-life advocacy group's office in Madison, Wis., days after a leaked decision revealed that the Supreme Court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade next month.
