U.S. Marshals told not to arrest protesters outside justices’ homes, documents reveal

[BlindBoo]

Read the article, you look ignorant.

There was no order given by the AG.

 

[AMart]

What a bunch of nonsense.

Refusing to attack the freedom of speech doesn’t make is a banana republic.

You little fascists just want people to be arrested because you disagree with them.

It's illegal retard.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent 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.

https://archive.is/mYrGF#selection-781.0-781.612

 

[Marener]

Yep, that's what EVERY African dictator in a leopard-skin skirt says: see, I had to put him in jail, he had broken the law, see! And every petty pol in Tajikistan and Pakistan and all the other Worthlesstans, and in Honduras and Nicaragua, and Peru, and Ecuador ---------- and in Washington, D.C. as soon as the Democrats have gotten hold of it.

The country doesn't even have to grow bananas anymore: now that they see that the United States Democrats also arrest and imprison all political opponents, everyone in the world is doing it now --- Israel, France, everywhere they can get away with it. This is how the Democrats are ruining not just America but the whole rest of the world, as fast as they can.

You live in some alternate reality.

What candidates are being arrested?

 

[Marener]

No, I hate that. Those horrible people should be arrested, same deal as the harassers outside the homes of the USSC justices.

SCOTUS told us they can’t be arrested because “harassment” as you’ve defined it is protected by the constitution.

Should SCOTUS have different standards when they’re affected?

 

[marvin martian]

Garland isn’t prosecuting conservatives breaking this law.

Fail.

Link to conservatives protesting outside SCOTUS justices homes?

 

[Circe]

You live in some alternate reality.

What candidates are being arrested?

Trump and everyone he knows that they can catch hold of. The worthless Dem bastards.

 

[Circe]

SCOTUS told us they can’t be arrested because “harassment” as you’ve defined it is protected by the constitution.

Should SCOTUS have different standards when they’re affected?

You know, I live in this area and I followed this case very closely. You are just dead, dead wrong. The protestors were supposed to be arrested for harassing at private homes: it was clear in the statute. They didn't because of horrible Dem dirty politics. And now you are trying to lie your way out of these facts. I think all of that is pretty terrible.

 

[marvin martian]

SCOTUS told us they can’t be arrested because “harassment” as you’ve defined it is protected by the constitution.

Should SCOTUS have different standards when they’re affected?

That's not what happened in this case. The protesters broke a law, and banana republic Joe and Garland ordered the marshals not to arrest the criminals.

 

[pknopp]

They were protesting a SC judges house before a ruling. That is against the law.

No it isn't. They were protesting a ruling.

 

[Rambunctious]

China would be first in line cracking down on speech against the government.

That’s what you want here.

Do you guys really not see this?

Who is cracking down on free speech?.... its not us guys... its your guys... sending the IRS to intimidate a congressional witness looking into the government and twitter ignoring the 1st amendment?...
how can you be so blind?...
The reporter in question is a liberal by the way.... so your side is not immune to this government overreach....

 

[Marener]

Who is cracking down on free speech?.... its not us guys... its your guys... sending the IRS to intimidate a congressional witness looking into the government and twitter ignoring the 1st amendment?...
how can you be so blind?...
The reporter in question is a liberal by the way.... so your side is not immune to this government overreach....

So why do you want to arrest people standing on the sidewalk again?

 

[Rambunctious]

So why do you want to arrest people standing on the sidewalk again?

Because its not their street and they didn't have a protest permit and they were threatening a supreme court justice....

 

[Marener]

You know, I live in this area and I followed this case very closely. You are just dead, dead wrong. The protestors were supposed to be arrested for harassing at private homes: it was clear in the statute. They didn't because of horrible Dem dirty politics. And now you are trying to lie your way out of these facts. I think all of that is pretty terrible.

So you're upset the Dems didn’t enforce laws that restrict freedom of speech?

 

[Marener]

Because its not their street and they didn't have a protest permit and they were threatening a supreme court justice....

It’s public property so it’s their street as much as anyone else’s.

 

[marvin martian]

So why do you want to arrest people standing on the sidewalk again?

Because it's illegal to protest outside SCOTUS justices' homes. Only in a banana republic like Joe Biden's does the AG order the cops not to arrest people for committing a crime. This is what you voted for.

 

[Rambunctious]

So why do you want to arrest people standing on the sidewalk again?

Tell you what dummy... you PM me your address and I will get a few friends to come with me and we will shout and scream all night long outside of your home... I'll bet you 10,000 bucks you would call the police....

 

[Rambunctious]

It’s public property so it’s their street as much as anyone else’s.

They didn't have a permit to protest there... if they had applied for one it wouldn't have been granted.... disturbing the peace is just one offense they could have been arrested for....

 

[BluesLegend]

Because its not their street and they didn't have a protest permit and they were threatening a supreme court justice....

I'm sorry but there's a Dem rule, if D ignore the law.

 

[postman]

It's illegal retard.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent 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.

https://archive.is/mYrGF#selection-781.0-781.612

Nothing there against harassing them.
If your harassment does not influence them, or stop them from their job, then it doesn't violate the statute.

 

[TNHarley]

No it isn't. They were protesting a ruling.

The ruling hadnt happened yet.