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

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Which I would say is missing from these protest. The ruling is done and over with, there is nothing left to influence

 

[Faun]

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.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you can't even tell the difference between a building and a sidewalk.

 

[Marener]

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.

Incorrectly decided. The constitution is quite clear.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

Read post #80. The First Amendment distinguishes between pure speech, and speech plus conduct. Protesting is conduct, which has more limited protections depending on the type of conduct, legitimate state interests, and how it intersects with other rights. For instance, the right to "peaceably assemble" is conditioned on the the protestors not breaching the peace. It's right there in the First Amendment, can't miss it.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Incorrectly decided. The constitution is quite clear.

Hahahaha oh ok. Now you're a constitutional law scholar. I'm not buying your schtick. Troll alert. Which mod's sock account is this?

 

[hadit]

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.

Not from the law that prohibits it. You're not allowed to try to influence a Justice's decision by protesting outside his/her home.

 

[Ralph Norton]

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

So you don't have an answer - just talking shit as usual.
I read it, dumb ass. Why do you think I have cited it repeatedly in this thread?

 

[Marener]

Read post #80. The First Amendment distinguishes between pure speech, and speech plus conduct. Protesting is conduct, which has more limited protections depending on the type of conduct, legitimate state interests, and how it intersects with other rights. For instance, the right to "peaceably assemble" is conditioned on the the protestors not breaching the peace. It's right there in the First Amendment, can't miss it.

No one is claiming that standing on the sidewalk and speaking is breaching the peace. The first amendment doesn’t say anything about “pure speech” or limited protections for protesting.

So much for textualism.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you don't have an answer - just talking shit as usual.
I read it, dumb ass. Why do you think I have cited it repeatedly in this thread?

If you had read it you would know that the act of protesting is not against the law. There has to be certain intent behind it. How did you miss that part?

 

[Ralph Norton]

18 USC 1507 isn’t the constitution.

Read the first amendment and get back to us.

Thanks for the sophomoric argument.
It is constitutional until the Supreme Court says it isn't.
Get back to us when that happens.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're not allowed to try to influence a Justice's decision by protesting outside his/her home.

The ruling is over, there is nothing to influence

 

[Marener]

Not from the law that prohibits it. You're not allowed to try to influence a Justice's decision by protesting outside his/her home.

The constitution does indeed protect us from laws that try to prohibit things it protects.

 

[Marener]

Thanks for the sophomoric argument.
It is constitutional until the Supreme Court says it isn't.
Get back to us when that happens.

SCOTUS has a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling. I guess they’d have to all recuse.

 

[Ralph Norton]

If you had read it you would know that the act of protesting is not against the law. There has to be certain intent behind it. How did you miss that part?

And what do you suppose their "intent" is?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And what do you suppose their "intent" is?

to express their displeasure at the ruling.

good luck proving anything other than that in court

 

[Ralph Norton]

SCOTUS has a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling. I guess they’d have to all recuse.

Fair enough. Let us know when THAT happens.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Man. The first amendment is a real bitch.

Moron, it has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment!

 

[hadit]

The constitution does indeed protect us from laws that try to prohibit things it protects.

Then get yourself arrested and challenge it.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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?

As long as you democrats can threaten violence on your target all is well I guess.

 

[Ralph Norton]

to express their displeasure at the ruling.

good luck proving anything other than that in court

Intent can be ascertained by actions.
Let me see if I understand you correctly: the federal government, with teams of lawyers at its disposal, enacted 18 USC 1507 years ago but little Golfing Gator of USMB fame declares that it is unenforceable?
And you have been a legal scholar since when?