Biden DOJ admits they haven't prosecuted a single person for illegally protesting outside SCOTUS justices' homes

[Faun]

"Restrictions on the First Amendment must satisfy a three-prong test outlined by the Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989). These are also known as "time, place and manner restrictions."

So cry me a fucking river.

And in U.S. v. Grace, the SCOTUS ruled the First Amendment protects people to protest on a public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.

 

[Ralph Norton]

And in U.S. v. Grace, the SCOTUS ruled the First Amendment protects people to protest on a public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.

That's not what 18 USC 1507 says. In any event, we are talking about protesting in front of justices houses.

 

[marvin martian]

Why should they? No point in arresting someone if you can't get a conviction...

Yes, I realize Biden's DOJ is corrupt from top to bottom, but that's not what this thread is about. Now fuck off.

 

[marvin martian]

And in U.S. v. Grace, the SCOTUS ruled the First Amendment protects people to protest on a public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.

This is about protesting illegally in front of justices' homes, not the court. Learn how to read, dipshit.

 

[WEATHER53]

And in U.S. v. Grace, the SCOTUS ruled the First Amendment protects people to protest on a public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.

But not SC residences

 

[Faun]

That's not what 18 USC 1507 says. In any event, we are talking about protesting in front of justices houses.

Actually, that law says it's illegal to protest outside of a Justice's residence OR outside a courthouse. U.S. v. Grace ruled it's not illegal outside of a courthouse as long as the protesters are on a public sidewalk. If the First Amendment protects protesters on a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse, it stands to reason that would apply at a justice's residence as well. And while U.S. v. Grace was a case about the Supreme Court building, why on Earth should prosecutors go after protesters on a public sidewalk in front of Kavanaugh's residence when they have no chance of securing a conviction?

 

[Nostra]

And in U.S. v. Grace, the SCOTUS ruled the First Amendment protects people to protest on a public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.

So?

 

[Marener]

NOT WHEN I'T AGAINST THE LAW.

The law needs to be constitutional.

 

[Nostra]

The law needs to be constitutional.

It is.

 

[WEATHER53]

Libs it is irrelevant that you “feel it’s fair” to harass judges and their family at their homes.

 

[Faun]

Libs it is irrelevant that you “feel it’s fair” to harass judges and their family at their homes.

Why? As long as they remain on a public sidewalk, it fair for judges to harass whoever they want at their homes.

 

[Nostra]

Why? As long as they remain on a public sidewalk, it fair for judges to harass whoever they want at their homes.

It is a violation of federal statute, Simp.

 

[Faun]

It is a violation of federal statute, Simp.

Great, so explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

 

[Orangecat]

Man. The first amendment is a real bitch.

No, it isn't.
There is a law against protesting at SCOTUS Justices' homes, though.
Educate yourself and think better, Moroner.

 

[Nostra]

Great, so explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

Because there has been no SC ruling saying otherwise, Simp.

 

[Faun]

Because there has been no SC ruling saying otherwise, Simp.

Dumbfuck, the law you're referencing makes it illegal to protest outside of a justice's residence OR outside of a courthouse. I posted the SCOTUS ruling which makes it legal to protest outside of a courthouse from a sidewalk.

Given that and since you avoided answering the question, I'll ask it again. See if you can answer...

Explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, the law you're referencing makes it illegal to protest outside of a justice's residence OR outside of a courthouse. I posted the SCOTUS ruling which makes it legal to protest outside of a courthouse from a sidewalk.

Given that and since you avoided answering the question, I'll ask it again. See if you can answer...

Explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

Asked and answered, Simp.

There has been no SC ruling that shoots down the law against protesting outside a SC Justice's home.

Read that as many times as it takes to sink in that mushy skull of yours.

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, the law you're referencing makes it illegal to protest outside of a justice's residence OR outside of a courthouse. I posted the SCOTUS ruling which makes it legal to protest outside of a courthouse from a sidewalk.

Given that and since you avoided answering the question, I'll ask it again. See if you can answer...

Explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

I guess you didn't read up on the case you cited, cuz it doesn't deal with protestors trying to influence judges, juries, etc as the statute in question addresses.

Your case deals with this statute:

Title 40 U.S.C. 13k

The statute in question regarding the Dimtard terrorists outside Kavanaugh's home is:

Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “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.”

Here, go get educated Simp. Do you ever get tired of me making you look like the colossal moron you are?

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

 

[hadit]

Man. The first amendment is a real bitch.

Are you saying the law that expressly forbids this activity is unconstitutional? If so, have you notified the Supreme Court? Come on, man, get with it!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hate speech is protected. Threatening justices isn’t.

Is peacefully protesting on a sidewalk protected by the first amendment? I think it is.

Well glad you said that Schumer threaten them