ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Unconstitutional IMO

---

I disagree. It has long been allowed and agreed that reasonable limits on speech do not restrict "Free Speech." I believe that outside of a person's personal residence should be respectfully off limits. If your goal is to protest the actions of an individual person in government or a body of the government you do so on the public square or at their office building or place of work. To do so at their home brings their family into the matter. Protesting outside someone's home, when they are trying to sleep, disturbing their family (and their neighbors) is an act of intimidation. It's telling that person that no place is safe for them or their family.

Also protesting the Court is simply stupid and the people that do so are simpleton fools. It shows incredible ignorance on behalf of the protestors that have no idea how our system of Government works. The court do not work for the people. The court works for the Constitution.

---

The statute also purports to make all picketing and protesting outside ("or near") any federal courthouse illegal

---

Read the statute in its entirety. You cannot lift phrases or lines from the statute arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Getting onto the front steps of the SC building could be construed as a a bit of a gray area, but I don't think anyone of the court utilizes that portion of the building in their day-to-day.

You can have your free speech. The courts protect that. The statue comes into play the moment your free speech is determined to have the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.

But again, protesting a judge or a court is a fool's errand, undertaken by simpleton fools. The courts do not answer to the people. The courts answer only to the Constitution. If the people have a problem they are to take it up with the Legislative branch of the government.

---

I think you could infer an intent to sway or influence a judge/justice/juror in almost any demonstration or protest specific to a particular case outside a courthouse where the case is going on or under consideration. But either way, per the statute such demonstrations are no more legal outside courthouses than in front of people's homes. Any protest that is legal outside a courthouse is legal outside homes, and any protest that is illegal at a house is illegal at a courthouse. There's no distinction or difference in standards.

And yes, judges are supposed to decide cases on the law and the facts before them and not be swayed by the popularity or unpopularity of the decision. However, I also think there's a fundamental right for Americans to assemble and express our displeasure with the people and institutions who hold and exercise power over us.

---

This is true, with certain limitations. Protesting in a way that can influence judges is expressly codified into law as one of those limitations. The people doing it should be arrested, if we weren't a banana republic.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Simple. So many of the most powerful people in all branches of government, who exercise their power in ways that deeply affects millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) are utterly insulated from the people they rule over. There's often no other way to demonstrate where you might actually be seen and heard by the official you have a grievance with. Many people with grievances are not content with being told they can go express them somewhere they won't be seen or heard.

---

This is also why we see members of Congress or cabinet officials being cornered in bathrooms or elevators or restaurants or having chalk messages left outside their houses. That's the only way you as an aggrieved individual will ever have a chance to confront your rulers.

So you're a fan of the January 6th deal.... interesting.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Unconstitutional IMO

---

I disagree. It has long been allowed and agreed that reasonable limits on speech do not restrict "Free Speech." I believe that outside of a person's personal residence should be respectfully off limits. If your goal is to protest the actions of an individual person in government or a body of the government you do so on the public square or at their office building or place of work. To do so at their home brings their family into the matter. Protesting outside someone's home, when they are trying to sleep, disturbing their family (and their neighbors) is an act of intimidation. It's telling that person that no place is safe for them or their family.

Also protesting the Court is simply stupid and the people that do so are simpleton fools. It shows incredible ignorance on behalf of the protestors that have no idea how our system of Government works. The court do not work for the people. The court works for the Constitution.

---

The statute also purports to make all picketing and protesting outside ("or near") any federal courthouse illegal

---

Read the statute in its entirety. You cannot lift phrases or lines from the statute arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Getting onto the front steps of the SC building could be construed as a a bit of a gray area, but I don't think anyone of the court utilizes that portion of the building in their day-to-day.

You can have your free speech. The courts protect that. The statue comes into play the moment your free speech is determined to have the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.

But again, protesting a judge or a court is a fool's errand, undertaken by simpleton fools. The courts do not answer to the people. The courts answer only to the Constitution. If the people have a problem they are to take it up with the Legislative branch of the government.

---

I think you could infer an intent to sway or influence a judge/justice/juror in almost any demonstration or protest specific to a particular case outside a courthouse where the case is going on or under consideration. But either way, per the statute such demonstrations are no more legal outside courthouses than in front of people's homes. Any protest that is legal outside a courthouse is legal outside homes, and any protest that is illegal at a house is illegal at a courthouse. There's no distinction or difference in standards.

And yes, judges are supposed to decide cases on the law and the facts before them and not be swayed by the popularity or unpopularity of the decision. However, I also think there's a fundamental right for Americans to assemble and express our displeasure with the people and institutions who hold and exercise power over us.

---

I don't disagree that, in my opinion, protesting on the steps of the courthouse could be viewed as having the intent of influencing... Again I wonder if (DOJ non-enforcement aside) if people get away with it at the SC because it's not the entrance used by the justices or the officers of the court? Line up next to the private entrance around back and I think you've certainly crossed the line.

But I'm not a cop, I don't work in any way enforcing, writing, or interpreting federal law.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Simple. So many of the most powerful people in all branches of government, who exercise their power in ways that deeply affects millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) are utterly insulated from the people they rule over. There's often no other way to demonstrate where you might actually be seen and heard by the official you have a grievance with. Many people with grievances are not content with being told they can go express them somewhere they won't be seen or heard.

---

The law is written to protect judges from mob "justice." If democrats had an ounce of integrity (they don't), they would put a stop to the intimidation right now.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Simple. So many of the most powerful people in all branches of government, who exercise their power in ways that deeply affects millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) are utterly insulated from the people they rule over. There's often no other way to demonstrate where you might actually be seen and heard by the official you have a grievance with. Many people with grievances are not content with being told they can go express them somewhere they won't be seen or heard.

---

These are their HOMES. I don't support "protesting" outside of any of the justices' houses.

Everyone needs a place, safe from moronitude. That place, for them, is their personal residence.

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Simple. So many of the most powerful people in all branches of government, who exercise their power in ways that deeply affects millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) are utterly insulated from the people they rule over. There's often no other way to demonstrate where you might actually be seen and heard by the official you have a grievance with. Many people with grievances are not content with being told they can go express them somewhere they won't be seen or heard.

---

These are their HOMES. I don't support "protesting" outside of any of the justices' houses.

Everyone needs a place, safe from moronitude. That place, for them, is their personal residence.

---

Libs don't care. Ends justifies the means. Homes, bathrooms, anywhere and everywhere until they get their way.

If I remember correctly, one of the stated reasons that helped to carry the day in favor of stare decisis and letting Roe stand in Casey was that the SCOTUS had been the subject of major anti-abortion protests and it was important to show that protesting the Court was useless so maybe everyone would finally drop it and leave them alone.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Correct. But he's right about it also applying at the courthouse, not just their house

---

I agree that the law is written that way, but I would hope the courts would distinguish between a private residence and a workplace, if this ends up in the courts.

IMO the primary difference is that at the workplace a crowd really doesn't have the ability to influence any more than a judge watching the news; Should be viewed as protected free speech, unless it becomes violent. Outside a home, the crowd influences the judge by being threatening and putting a fear of violence towards the judge and his/her family.