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

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, if the language of the bill is unconstitutional at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level.

But the law in question hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, Simp.

Not sure how you can be so stupid as to not know that. Your examples are not related to the statute that covers your fellow travelers outside the homes of SC Justices.

 

[hadit]

Seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

It’s a public sidewalk. They’re engaging in speech.

The law specifically forbids it in front of a judge or justice's house. If you think it's unconstitutional, I'm sure there's a lawyer somewhere who will challenge it for you.

 

[hadit]

The Constitution protects one but not the other??

Until the law is ruled unconstitutional it apparently does. And, come on, you don't recognize the difference between where you work and your home?

 

[Marener]

The law specifically forbids it in front of a judge or justice's house. If you think it's unconstitutional, I'm sure there's a lawyer somewhere who will challenge it for you.

I can’t challenge it because I haven’t been arrested for violating the law.

But in its face, it’s hard to see how that could be at all constitutional. People engaging in speech on public sidewalks is protected.

 

[TNHarley]

I love watching the lefties say the constitution outweighs laws and such.
These fucks are so disingenuous

 

[hadit]

Place of business vs. home vs. uterus... Are you saying that the justices have a "RIGHT TO PRIVACY", that they just denied to half the population in this country?

Seeing as how there is no relation between the two, there's no reason to even put forth an answer. The law says what it says, and until it's declared unconstitutional, must be followed. Anyone protesting in front of a Justice's home in an attempt to influence their vote has broken the law. It's all really simple.

 

[hadit]

I can’t challenge it because I haven’t been arrested for violating the law.

But in its face, it’s hard to see how that could be at all constitutional. People engaging in speech on public sidewalks is protected.

Well, getting arrested for violating the law should be rather simple, don't you think? Find out where Justice Kagen lives, march up and down on the sidewalk screaming threats and you'll get arrested. Gotta protect the left wing, you know.

 

[hadit]

I love watching the lefties say the constitution outweighs laws and such.
These fucks are so disingenuous

Especially since they want to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Place of business vs. home vs. uterus... Are you saying that the justices have a "RIGHT TO PRIVACY", that they just denied to half the population in this country?

People are protesting in front of women's uteruses? (or is it uteri?)

 

[TNHarley]

Especially since they want to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way.

"there can restrictions to the second amendment but not the first! Just read it!!!"

 

[Flash]

There's a very clearly worded law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) that prohibits these protests, and Joe Biden's administration has effectively told terrorists like the one who tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh that they are free to break that law without repercussions.

No only that but Biden's justice dept has not done jackshit to prosecute the BLM insurrectionists that spent six months burning looting murdering and destroying government buildings.

Democrats cannot be in power. They are the scum of this country.

 

[Marener]

Well, getting arrested for violating the law should be rather simple, don't you think? Find out where Justice Kagen lives, march up and down on the sidewalk screaming threats and you'll get arrested. Gotta protect the left wing, you know.

Scream threats anywhere and you’ll get arrested. That’s not the law we are talking about. We are talking about peaceful non-threatening speech on a sidewalk that happens to be near the house of a justice.

That’s constitutionally protected.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There's a very clearly worded law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) that prohibits these protests

You clearly have not read it or you would know this is a lie

 

[Ralph Norton]

Scream threats anywhere and you’ll get arrested. That’s not the law we are talking about. We are talking about peaceful non-threatening speech on a sidewalk that happens to be near the house of a justice.

That’s constitutionally protected.

"That’s constitutionally protected."
18 USC 1507 says otherwise. Please read it and get back to us.

 

[Ralph Norton]

You clearly have not read it or you would know this is a lie

Maybe you could explain why it is a lie to us?

 

[bodecea]

There's a very clearly worded law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) that prohibits these protests, and Joe Biden's administration has effectively told terrorists like the one who tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh that they are free to break that law without repercussions.

Did they break the law? Or were they on public property (road and sidewalk)?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Maybe you could explain why it is a lie to us?

You could just try reading it, but I guess it has too many big words for you?

 

[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.

The White House is public property too. Go see if you can get in there to roam around with signs yelling stupid slogans.

Just tell them you have a First Amendment right, Simp.

 

[Marener]

"That’s constitutionally protected."
18 USC 1507 says otherwise. Please read it and get back to us.

18 USC 1507 isn’t the constitution.

Read the first amendment and get back to us.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

It’s a public sidewalk. They’re engaging in speech.

You would be wrong. Read Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965).

A similar law was held not to violate the First Amendment. The conviction was only reversed because he asked law enforcement if he could protest at the location in question and they told him yes, the location didn't trigger the statue. Then they arrested him. Reversed due to entrapment, not on First Amendment grounds.

Held:

1. The statute is narrowly drawn, furthers the State's legitimate interest of protecting its judicial system from pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create, is a valid regulation of conduct, as distinguished from pure speech, and does not infringe rights of free speech and assembly. Pp. 383 U. S. 562-564.

2. Even assuming the applicability of a "clear and present danger" test, there is no constitutional objection to applying the statute to conduct of the sort engaged in by the demonstrators. Pp. 383 U. S. 565-566.

3. The evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official required by the statute was constitutionally sufficient. Pp. 383 U. S. 566-567.

4. Appellant was, in effect, advised by the city's highest police officials that a demonstration at the place where it was held was not "near" the courthouse, and to permit him to be convicted for exercising the privilege they told him was available would be to allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, followed. Pp. 383 U. S. 569-571.