"you have released a whirlwind..

@techsouth said
They have protestors in front of there house, even though they may have children living there.

Are you okay with that being the price any SC judge has to accept from now on?

Keep in mind, this is already against the law. But Democrats don't care since the judges are conservative. It's all part of the brown shirt tactics.

It's against the law to protest in front of a public official's house? Since when?

I read this somewhere:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pro-choice protesters in front of SCOTUS judges' houses are doing exactly that.

@no1marauder said
It's against the law to protest in front of a public official's house? Since when?

I read this somewhere:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress ...[text shortened]... f grievances.

Pro-choice protesters in front of SCOTUS judges' houses are doing exactly that.

Since 1950, I was surprised too.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/picketing-law-supreme-court-homes/index.html

@jimm619 said
Since 1950, I was surprised too.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/picketing-law-supreme-court-homes/index.html

The law is blatantly unconstitutional if applied as written as it would ban any and all demonstrations at the SCOTUS or any Federal court building as well:

"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,.........................."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

@averagejoe1 said
Wildgrass, you seem like a stand-up guy. You are a member of society which is a little light on respect for human life, though. AND, a society which does not find life more meaningful as do Conservatives. These findings are the result of many different studies. Here is a link and I think I will throw it out there this Sunday morning for general consumption.

https:// ...[text shortened]... lantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/why-conservatives-find-life-more-meaningful-than-liberals/566105/

I was raised a conservative and still consider myself one. I'm just not a Republican or a zombified Trumper. Conservatives (at least politically) used to care about limited gov't and personal freedoms. This Republican party is the party of cultural mandates and corporate welfare.

Also, This article says that the reason why conservatives are happier is because they set the bar lower than liberals. I think this is probably true.

@no1marauder said
The law is blatantly unconstitutional if applied as written as it would ban any and all demonstrations at the SCOTUS or any Federal court building as well:

"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, [b] ...[text shortened]... ess, or court officer,.........................."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

Far be it that a liberal could not wave his sign in someone's face and bother hell out of people. There are other ways, like electing some loser in your party to do your bidding, be it ghouilsh, or demanding people who have acquired stuff to give over their stuff. Why raise hell, beating drums and such crap. A guy with a drum, for god sakes, in front of Amy Barret's house, with seven children. I live across the street and cannot concentrate on my studious discussion with Jikmmmmm.
I think there may be some city ordinances about that, but Marauder sort of leaves that out of the soliloquies. Who do we call?

@averagejoe1 said
Far be it that a liberal could not wave his sign in someone's face and bother hell out of people. There are other ways, like electing some loser in your party to do your bidding, be it ghouilsh, or demanding people who have acquired stuff to give over their stuff. Why raise hell, beating drums and such crap. A guy with a drum, for god sakes, in front of Amy Barret's ho ...[text shortened]... ity ordinances about that, but Marauder sort of leaves that out of the soliloquies. Who do we call?

Look, I understand that Trump would like nothing more than the right to gas all protestors, but that is about as anti-American as it gets, so I'd think twice about supporting that nonsense if I were you.

@jimm619 said
If laws are broken, arrest the offenders.
The cops , on the scene, are in
charge of this, not The Democratic Party.
A protest is, most usually, a legal exercise
protected by The Constitution.
....Brown shirt tactics?....You been watchin' too many JAN/6th vids.

You are absolutely blind to the corruption of the Democrats.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

You don't think the Democrats prevent the police from intervening? You're blind.

I agree. If laws are broken, arrest the offenders. The difference is that for me, I'm in favor of arresting protestors in front of SC judges homes, BLM protestors who engage in vandalism and blocking highways, and Jan 6th protestors who engaged in violence. You' make your decisions based on which politics you prefer.

@techsouth said
You are absolutely blind to the corruption of the Democrats.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

You don't think the Democrats prevent the police from intervening? You're blind.

I agree. If laws are broken, arrest the offenders. The difference is that for me, I'm in favor of arresting protestors in front of SC judges homes, BLM protestors who eng ...[text shortened]... th protestors who engaged in violence. You' make your decisions based on which politics you prefer.

If all obey the law, I don't see what the libs get so annnnnnngry about. But consider, is it their plan in such instances to Break the law?? To attract attention? To goad police to get pushy and get in trouble? What is it with libs? Why can they not let SCOTUS do their jobs? THE LAW says that they make decisions which must be followed. That, only nine people, the judges, make the decisions, NOT the people on the street. ( I myself, have never. been on a street, except in a crosswalk)
So, you libs, there is some law, somewhere, that prohibits you from being involved making the 9-person decision. Your govt that you love so much wants you to follow the law. When Roe is overturned, well, that is the law. That is the law. We know you hate it, and will be in our face about it. So tedious. You, not The Law.

@techsouth said
You are absolutely blind to the corruption of the Democrats.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

You don't think the Democrats prevent the police from intervening? You're blind.

I agree. If laws are broken, arrest the offenders. The difference is that for me, I'm in favor of arresting protestors in front of SC judges homes, BLM protestors who eng ...[text shortened]... th protestors who engaged in violence. You' make your decisions based on which politics you prefer.

Are you in favoring of arresting these protesters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)

"The March for Life proceedings begin around noon.[5] They typically consist of a rally at the National Mall near Fourth Street (in 2018, this was near 12th St. NW).[15] It is followed by a march which travels down Constitution Avenue NW, turns right at First Street NE, and then ends on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States, where another rally is held."

They are just as much in violation of the wording of the statute as pro-choice protestors outside SCOTUS judges' homes.

@averagejoe1 said
If all obey the law, I don't see what the libs get so annnnnnngry about. But consider, is it their plan in such instances to Break the law?? To attract attention? To goad police to get pushy and get in trouble? What is it with libs? Why can they not let SCOTUS do their jobs? THE LAW says that they make decisions which must be followed. That, only nine people, th ...[text shortened]... is the law. We know you hate it, and will be in our face about it. So tedious. You, not The Law.

So right wing organizations can protest against "the law" but left wing ones can't?

Have you ever actually read the First Amendment?

@techsouth said
You are absolutely blind to the corruption of the Democrats.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

You don't think the Democrats prevent the police from intervening? You're blind.

I agree. If laws are broken, arrest the offenders. The difference is that for me, I'm in favor of arresting protestors in front of SC judges homes, BLM protestors who eng ...[text shortened]... th protestors who engaged in violence. You' make your decisions based on which politics you prefer.

Dig into it,
there are dozens of 'CREDIBLE NEWS SITES
that assert that there have been no conspiracy hoax,
but more every real fortune in men's eyes....GREED

@jimm619 said
Dig into it,
there are dozens of 'CREDIBLE NEWS SITES
that assert that there have been no conspiracy hoax,
but more every real fortune in men's eyes....GREED

I've seen literally dozens of protests at the Federal Court Building in Albany, NY and no one was ever arrested under that unconstitutional statute.

@no1marauder said
So right wing organizations can protest against "the law" but left wing ones can't?

Have you ever actually read the First Amendment?

I have, and I believe in every word of it, and that it should apply in 2022 and beyond, if that is what you are looking for. I guess, to get to the next pint that I have to ask You how You 'interpret' it. If you agree with me, and I assume that you would, given con law, et al, what is your question? You fellers are like the riddler in Batman.
As to your question (?).....all of our citizens can protest the law. OF course, those who are not citizens, like the illegal aliens, have no right to protest the law, but that is another issue for another thread.

@no1marauder said
I've seen literally dozens of protests at the Federal Court Building in Albany, NY and no one was ever arrested under that unconstitutional statute.

.......Dunno', seems as if it would be
selective enforcement?

@averagejoe1 said
I have, and I believe in every word of it, and that it should apply in 2022 and beyond, if that is what you are looking for. I guess, to get to the next pint that I have to ask You how You 'interpret' it. If you agree with me, and I assume that you would, given con law, et al, what is your question? You fellers are like the riddler in Batman.
As to your questio ...[text shortened]... the illegal aliens, have no right to protest the law, but that is another issue for another thread.

I interpret it to mean, for the purposes of this discussion, that the People can protest in front of the homes of government officials to voice their displeasure at the actions of those officials. The law right wingers are trying to use to suppress those protests is unconstitutional in its entirety and by its express wording would criminalize protests at the SCOTUS itself or any other Federal Court building including the anti-abortion ones.