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

[justaschmuck9]

Most are charged with trespassing. How can one be charged with trespassing on public property?

yeh, at one time it was called the People's House

guess that changed

 

[justaschmuck9]

Too busy chasing Soccor Moms, er domestic terrorists.

yes, things are quite Orwellian these days

mothers who care about their children and don't want them molested, sexually or mentally are terrorists

meanwhile actual terrorists who threaten SCOTUS justices get a wrist slap

 

[Marener]

libtards only "care about" the first amendment or any of them when it looks like invoking such can help them politically, you know... when it can be used by their useful idiots to keep them in power

There used to be a law against protesting on sidewalks in front of abortion clinics.
SCOTUS held it was unconstitutionally limiting free speech.

 

[Faun]

You are such a GD idiot! Yes it is illegal because if there was no fire, it would still incite panic, you dumb MF!

Idiot.

Legal Mythbusting Series: Yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater | Whalen Law Office

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I'm sure you've heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech and limitations on free speech and the First Amendment. Well, it's actually one of the most widely misunderstood quotes in American law. It's routinely parroted as the status of...

www.whalenlawoffice.com

 

[Faun]

Both public property, Simp.

That was your argument. I guess you want to change your story again.

And you don't know the difference between the two. You're astonishingly stupid.

 

[Faun]

Most are charged with trespassing. How can one be charged with trespassing on public property?

Dumbfuck, this is how...

Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building

Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building

Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building

Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building​

 

[JoeB131]

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.

So what you are saying is that a SCOTUS justice shouldn't have to face the people whose lives they are effecting?

 

[Nostra]

And you don't know the difference between the two. You're astonishingly stupid.

public property​

n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, this is how...

Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building​

​

Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building​

​

Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building​

​

Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building​

Why no link, Simp?

And then explain why PUBLIC PROPRETY can be restricted if we have the First Amendment.

This will be fun to watch.

 

[Faun]

public property​

n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

Aww, how adorable, you still don't know thd difference between a building and a sidewalk.

 

[iceberg]

Man. The first amendment is a real bitch.

Man, the 2nd amendment is a bitch.

 

[Nostra]

Aww, how adorable, you still don't know thd difference between a building and a sidewalk.

I never said anything remotely close to that, Simp.

But both sidewalks and buildings are listed in the definition of “public property”.

Funny how you are changing your story yet again once I expose your dumbassery.

 

[Faun]

Why no link, Simp?

And then explain why PUBLIC PROPRETY can be restricted if we have the First Amendment.

This will be fun to watch.

LOL

You're such a glutton for punishment, Dumbfuck.

Here's the link you're unaware of...

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov

And public property can be restricted in the interest of national security. How the fuck is that beyond even your limited comprehension??

But I'm glad you said to "watch" this. I did and it was fun obliterating you yet again. This is me dancing on the grave where your brain is buried.

 

[Faun]

I never said anything remotely close to that, Simp.

But both sidewalks and buildings are listed in the definition of “public property”.

Funny how you are changing your story yet again once I expose your dumbassery.

Of course you demonstrated you don't know the difference between a building and a sidewalk. You think ALL public property is treated the same.

 

[hadit]

So what you are saying is that a SCOTUS justice shouldn't have to face the people whose lives they are effecting?

Interesting, but so far off the reservation I have no idea why you would even ask it. What I am saying, and the law agrees, is that Justices should NOT face attempts via threats or intimidation to force them to vote certain ways on cases they hear, any more than jurors should face such when they are considering the trial. They are supposed to be independent, which is why they are not elected by popular vote.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals feel that persons they dislike don’t have privacy laws and that their feeling of their “right” to bother them at home invalidates existing law prohibiting such

 

[WEATHER53]

So what you are saying is that a SCOTUS justice shouldn't have to face the people whose lives they are effecting?

At their work it is permitted but at home it’s prohibited.
Annoying assholeism does have some legal restraints

 

[Nostra]

LOL

You're such a glutton for punishment, Dumbfuck.

Here's the link you're unaware of...

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov

And public property can be restricted in the interest of national security. How the fuck is that beyond even your limited comprehension??

But I'm glad you said to "watch" this. I did and it was fun obliterating you yet again. This is me dancing on the grave where your brain is buried.

So you admit not all public property is treated the same.

Exactly why demonstrations meant to intimidate SC Justices can be made unlawful outside their home even on public property.


You just kicked your own ass, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

Of course you demonstrated you don't know the difference between a building and a sidewalk. You think ALL public property is treated the same.

I never said that all public property is treated the same. I have been making exactly the opposite argument. You are just too fucking stupid To figure it out.

 

[WEATHER53]

So you admit not all public property is treated the same.

Exactly why demonstrations meant to intimidate SC Justices can be made unlawful outside their home even on public property.


You just kicked your own ass, Simp.

The strip of land and sidewalk in front of most everyone’s homes around DC is a right of way not for the public but for the municipality and utilities to have unrestricted access to that area. The property owner does however have to cut the grass, remove trash and debris, and shovel snow. The last thing that those strips of concrete and land are for is so dim bulbs can harass the people living there. That feeling is more made up liberal drivel.