Pelosi Endorses Harrassment Of Justices

[Viktor]

She should be disbarred

 

[Stormy Daniels]

She should be disbarred

Yes, because that's something that happens to nonmembers of the bar, as no foreign agent provocateur would know.

 

[westwall]

She should be disbarred

She should be hung for insurrection

 

[task0778]

I would say that if protesters want to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court building then they can legally do that. Going to an individual justice's home ought to be and I think IS illegal. If Pelosi is referring to the 1st case, fine. But if she's talking about the 2nd case then she's advocating for illegal activities and that's not fine.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I would say that if protesters want to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court building then they can legally do that. Going to an individual justice's home ought to be and I think IS illegal. If Pelosi is referring to the 1st case, fine. But if she's talking about the 2nd case then she's advocating for illegal activities and that's not fine.

Just because it's sleazy doesn't make it illegal.

 

[task0778]

Just because it's sleazy doesn't make it illegal.

Fox News has a report on the Biden Justice Department’s refusal to take enforcement action against radical leftists who have been conducting demonstrations at the homes of Supreme Court justices, blatantly seeking to intimidate and influence the Court while it has the Dobbs abortion case under consideration.

As Rich noted last week (citing Allahpundit), a federal penal statute, Section 1507, unambiguously criminalizes this behavior. I’ve heard some suggestion in the commentary in recent days that Section 1507 may violate free-speech principles. It doesn’t.

DOJ’s Silence on the Left’s Lawless Intimidation of Supreme Court Justices | National Review

Biden’s thug government continues.

www.nationalreview.com

It is both sleazy AND illegal.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Fox News has a report on the Biden Justice Department’s refusal to take enforcement action against radical leftists who have been conducting demonstrations at the homes of Supreme Court justices, blatantly seeking to intimidate and influence the Court while it has the Dobbs abortion case under consideration.

As Rich noted last week (citing Allahpundit), a federal penal statute, Section 1507, unambiguously criminalizes this behavior. I’ve heard some suggestion in the commentary in recent days that Section 1507 may violate free-speech principles. It doesn’t.

DOJ’s Silence on the Left’s Lawless Intimidation of Supreme Court Justices | National Review

Biden’s thug government continues.

www.nationalreview.com

It is both sleazy AND illegal.

Assembly and protest are constitutionally protected. Doing it in front of someone's house is sleazy, but so long as they aren't trespassing on private property, it is their constitutional right.

 

[scruffy]

Assembly and protest are constitutionally protected. Doing it in front of someone's house is sleazy, but so long as they aren't trespassing on private property, it is their constitutional right.

No.

No, it isn't.

You have that one wrong.

Would you like to argue the point?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Would you like to argue the point?

Go right ahead. There is no argument that you can make that will make a difference. It's really quite simple:

• The bill of rights protects the right to free speech and the right to protest.
• Any law that would interfere is unconstitutional.
• Any case law precedent is from activist judges.
• If the current Supreme Court won't overturn those past cases like they're doing Roe v. Wade, they're biased and activist and should be impeached for dereliction of duty and whatever else have you.

This is precisely the argument Republicans would make if the subject were one of their preference. I see no reason to change the theory simply because it doesn't work out as neatly for you this time around. And seeing as there are so many on the Republicans who keep claiming that a violent insurrection to overthrow the Congress was constitutionally protected free speech, I'm not going to listen to one scintilla of anyone trying to claim these protests are somehow illegal. I will be satisfied to say they are sleazy and repugnant.

 

[task0778]

Assembly and protest are constitutionally protected. Doing it in front of someone's house is sleazy, but so long as they aren't trespassing on private property, it is their constitutional right.

I'm sure you know that the right to speech and assembly both have some restrictions, as does every other freedom listed in the Bill of Rights. As I said in Post #6, protesting at the homes of Supreme Court justices in order to influence their decisions is unlawful, unless you want to argue that such demonstrations are not intended to intimidate or influence those justices. In which case I would have to conclude that you are either a liar, an ideological fool, or both.

Or maybe you believe that it is perfectly okay to ignore and transgress any law that contradicts your ideology. In which case, you at least would not be a liar, but you would still be an ideological fool. Should we really have a society that allows scofflaws to blatently disregard any and all laws because you don't agree with them?