Supreme Court Justices

[Bande]

Why are they not Arresting all the people outside supreme justices home.
Intimidating is illegal and if the Government reacted to this it would disperse.
Another Leftist move not protecting supreme court justices nor acting on the law.
Typical..

[Danno]

they did

[dogwalker]

I do not know the details where they live but typically there is not much that can be done about people on public streets as long as they follow the law.  So I propose the Justices should live on large gated, private properties with heavy security.   

[Blkfyre]

Why are they not Arresting all the people outside supreme justices home.
Intimidating is illegal and if the Government reacted to this it would disperse.
Another Leftist move not protecting supreme court justices nor acting on the law.
Typical..

While the First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, so-called "time, place, and manner" restrictions have been enacted by local governments across the country and upheld by the courts. "What you can do is pass an ordinance that says 'No protesting outside of residential homes, What you can't do is pass an ordinance that says, 'No protesting specifically about [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization], for example, outside of [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh's home.

Municipalities can pass rules that broadly prohibit protesting outside people's homes, but not rules that prohibit protesting about specific topics or issues.

Since there is no such ordinance as long as they do not break the law, they can be there.

Personally, I think it's a dick move and they shouldn't be there. You got a problem with a judge, protest outside of their place of work, not their home, but legally, First Amendment covers their protesting until/unless legislation is passed to stop it.

[Hobby]

The federal law O'Reilly claims these protestors have violated is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge's home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

WASHINGTON (TND) — The First Amendment protects the right to peacefully protest but both Democrats and Republicans say the pro-choice protests that have been taking place at conservative Supreme Court justices' homes should fall outside of that constitutional protection.

The general consensus from legal experts across the country is that under Federal Code 1507 — the Picketing and Parading law — these protests are illegal especially given the fact the Supreme Court ruling isn't final.

The law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, in the discharge of his duty" cannot picket near a judge's residence.

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-team-is-it-legal-to-protest-at-supreme-court-justices-homes-peaceful-protests-roe-v-wade-leaked-draft-opinion-federal-code-1507-scotus-justice-protests-at-home

Seems there already is federal law prhohibiting these protestors outside of the justices homes.

[Danno]

who's O'Reilly?

[Romanticlover]

they did

The only protestor arrested was that nutjob that wanted to kill Kavanaugh.

[Hobby]

who's O'Reilly?

you got internet go look it up I am not doing work for you...

[Danno]

get your info from a car parts store?
you like throw out info without facts to back it up.

[Blkfyre]

The federal law O'Reilly claims these protestors have violated is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge's home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

WASHINGTON (TND) — The First Amendment protects the right to peacefully protest but both Democrats and Republicans say the pro-choice protests that have been taking place at conservative Supreme Court justices' homes should fall outside of that constitutional protection.

The general consensus from legal experts across the country is that under Federal Code 1507 — the Picketing and Parading law — these protests are illegal especially given the fact the Supreme Court ruling isn't final.

The law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, in the discharge of his duty" cannot picket near a judge's residence.

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-team-is-it-legal-to-protest-at-supreme-court-justices-homes-peaceful-protests-roe-v-wade-leaked-draft-opinion-federal-code-1507-scotus-justice-protests-at-home

Seems there already is federal law prhohibiting these protestors outside of the justices homes.

Ok, so have they been arrested?

[Hobby]

Ok, so have they been arrested?

Sort of a dumb question when Biden and other leaders along with the mayor are democrats who support the protestors being there and abortion and don't support our laws.

[Bande]

While the First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, so-called "time, place, and manner" restrictions have been enacted by local governments across the country and upheld by the courts. "What you can do is pass an ordinance that says 'No protesting outside of residential homes, What you can't do is pass an ordinance that says, 'No protesting specifically about [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization], for example, outside of [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh's home.

Municipalities can pass rules that broadly prohibit protesting outside people's homes, but not rules that prohibit protesting about specific topics or issues.

Since there is no such ordinance as long as they do not break the law, they can be there.

Personally, I think it's a dick move and they shouldn't be there. You got a problem with a judge, protest outside of their place of work, not their home, but legally, First Amendment covers their protesting until/unless legislation is passed to stop it.

It is against Federal Law to intimidate anyone involved in a Federal case. Especially in front of Private Residences.
Now, If one is protesting in front of a court house per say that is different.
They all need to be arrested.\
Blkfyre what you state is inaccurate.
Once again Leftists do not react and arrest people..

This is why federal law prohibits picketing or parading in front of the home of a judge, juror, witness, or officer of the court under pain of up to one year in prison. Efforts to intimidate people within the legal system are an offense against judicial independence, a key prerequisite to democracy. If protesters want to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court, that is fine. But going into a judge's neighborhood and marching in front of his or her home is too far. It is a dangerous act of intimidation that should be roundly criticized.

[Bande]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/intimidating-judges-puts-the-rule-of-law-at-risk-for-all-of-us

[Bande]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-is-encouraging-illegal-intimidation-of-justices


This is why federal law prohibits picketing or parading in front of the home of a judge, juror, witness, or officer of the court under pain of up to one year in prison. Efforts to intimidate people within the legal system are an offense against judicial independence, a key prerequisite to democracy. If protesters want to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court, that is fine. But going into a judge's neighborhood and marching in front of his or her home is too far. It is a dangerous act of intimidation that should be roundly criticized.

[Bande]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/115