Demosthenes81 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Tell that to the legislators that passed a law making just that illegal.

---

It's pretty fuzzy. Protests that are clearly meant to intimidate or influence would be illegal, but that can't be too broad as to encompass any political protests in their neighborhood. Will be tough to interpret that law. Either way, people just want to shut down the right to free speech.

Also it's comical how fast they rush to pass laws like that but when 19 kids in a classroom get their heads blown off they're like "ugh can we puh-leeze stop talking about this? I have an appointment to get to."

---

They are 100% trying to influence these justices. Otherwise, WTF are they there for?

---

It's a vague law, and that intent is hard to prove. It's not the first time someone has protested outside a politician's house. And it can't be interpreted too broadly to encompass all public speech in the justice's neighborhood. It's a dumb, unconstitutional law because it attempts to regulate content of the speech. As long as there are no threats or trespassing, it's protected. So good luck actually prosecuting it.

---

Nothing vague about it.

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.

---

It has nothing to do with politicians and is covering only judicial officers and witnesses. It specifically outlaws attempting to influence a decision. It covers parading (moving) It covers both the work place and home and it specifically calls out sound amplification devices. Where is the vagueness?

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Once again, wrong.

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

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.

---

Next?

---

Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.

---

It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Once again, wrong.

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

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.

---

Next?

---

Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.

---

It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.

---

Now do the Second Amendment

---

First amendment can have reasonable time and place restrictions, and in very rare circumstances, content restrictions (eg threats). Second amendment is no different in that it is subject to reasonable restrictions.

There.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Once again, wrong.

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

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.

---

Next?

---

Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.

---

It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.

---

Now do the Second Amendment

---

First amendment can have reasonable time and place restrictions, and in very rare circumstances, content restrictions (eg threats). Second amendment is no different in that it is subject to reasonable restrictions.

There.

---

Reasonable time and place restrictions...such as, laws that forbid picketing and parading with the intent of influencing a judge's decision.

---

Good luck proving that last part.

But I'll give you want you want. I dont agree with people who do these protests and think they are wasting their time. Also Ruth Sent Us has gone way too far with revealing of more personal info of judges. That is dangerous and can lead to bad outcomes. And that is not the same as mere protesting on the street.

I am reminded of Judge Esther Salas from last year. Way too easy for crazies to get too close to judges.

---

Sims said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Wonder what he would say if a bunch of Klan idiots in their sheets was standing outside an African American's house?

---

We're here from the DNC and we're here to help?

---

Quote:

---

THIS IS THE POLITICAL COUP.

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Wonder what he would say if a bunch of Klan idiots in their sheets was standing outside an African American's house?

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I know it's fun to label me as some crazy liberal who wants to murder all the conservative justices but I don't condone behavior like that.

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Wonder what he would say if a bunch of Klan idiots in their sheets was standing outside an African American's house?

---

larry culpepper said:

---

You didn't say that, but the general tone of this thread is like the Democrats have some big conspiracy to do so.

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Wonder what he would say if a bunch of Klan idiots in their sheets was standing outside an African American's house?

---

I think most reasonable people would consider that action, taken in whole, as a threat.

It's similar to this one.

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Post what you want. Believe what you want.

---

Thanks!

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Tell that to the legislators that passed a law making just that illegal.

---

It's pretty fuzzy. Protests that are clearly meant to intimidate or influence would be illegal, but that can't be too broad as to encompass any political protests in their neighborhood. Will be tough to interpret that law. Either way, people just want to shut down the right to free speech.

Also it's comical how fast they rush to pass laws like that but when 19 kids in a classroom get their heads blown off they're like "ugh can we puh-leeze stop talking about this? I have an appointment to get to."

---

The Collective said:

---

The preliminary opinion for the abortion case should have never been leaked. It is absolute bullsh...

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

We are looking at it keef. You aren't consistent. We get it. You like some demonstrations not others. All we are asking is consistency.

---

You're right. I'm not consistent by not liking all demonstrations. I support people peacefully protesting in front of judge's houses but not KKK members protesting in front of a black person's house. You got me.

---

You really think it's ok to protest in front of a Supreme Court justice house?

---

I honestly do.

---

javajaws said:

---

Don't you liberals get tired of being wrong lying all the time?

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

We are looking at it keef. You aren't consistent. We get it. You like some demonstrations not others. All we are asking is consistency.

---

You're right. I'm not consistent by not liking all demonstrations. I support people peacefully protesting in front of judge's houses but not KKK members protesting in front of a black person's house. You got me.

---

You really think it's ok to protest in front of a Supreme Court justice house?

---

I honestly do.

---

So attempting to sway their decisions is ok with Democrats no matter what it involves? You would have been happy if he was murdered right?

---

How do you go from supporting peaceful protest to murder? Another strawman.

---