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

[postman]

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.

No it's illegal to influence them outside their homes.

Harassing them is protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[MarathonMike]

No it's illegal to influence them outside their homes.

Harassing them is protected under the 1st amendment.

That is quite frankly bullshit. Harassing people in their homes for any reason is not "freedom of speech" it is threatening and invading the privacy of a citizen.

 

[BluesLegend]

That is quite frankly bullshit. Harassing people in their homes for any reason is not "freedom of speech" it is threatening and invading the privacy of a citizen.

Just start locking up these Dem law breakers for 10 years. Let them work on a chain gain picking up trash along the highways. In short order we'll run out of lawless Dems to lock up.

 

[postman]

That is quite frankly bullshit. Harassing people in their homes for any reason is not "freedom of speech" it is threatening and invading the privacy of a citizen.

NOPE. Invading their home is threatening and invading the privacy of a citizen.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It is not illegal to protest. There was nothing to arrest people over for protesting. Look at how many places that had to pay out millions for arresting people while simply protesting.

It's not illegal to protest, but if 100 people gather outside someone's personal home is that still just a protest? What about the terror inflicted on other people inside the home? What about the disturbance to other people in the neighborhood? What happens if someone in the home tries to leave or someone residing there arrives home? What if there is an emergency for anyone in the neighborhood and the streets are blocked? Frequently, when people not involved have tried to pass through a protesting crowd they've been met with a violent reaction.

As has been decided in many court cases our rights are not always absolute, like the Second Amendment, for instance. What are the limits to a protest? Do you think there should be any at all?

 

[Marener]

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....

You don’t need a permit to stand on the sidewalk and express an opinion.

You’re just looking for excuses to suppress speech you don’t like.

 

[postman]

Just start locking up these Dem law breakers for 10 years. Let them work on a chain gain picking up trash along the highways. In short order we'll run out of lawless Dems to lock up.

The law is against influencing, not harassing.

 

[postman]

What if there is an emergency for anyone in the neighborhood and the streets are blocked?

Chris Christie and "bridgegate" ring a bell.
They were cleared, even though people may have died in ambulances stuck in the traffic Christie caused.

 

[Rambunctious]

You don’t need a permit to stand on the sidewalk and express an opinion.

You’re just looking for excuses to suppress speech you don’t like.

Oh but you do... the law for protesting still stands... you must have a permit... its not enforced on liberals but it is still the law....
So give us your address so we can express our opinion in front of your house....

 

[WEATHER53]

Which is an illegal dictate over an illegal act
Criminal coddling coming to an end would be a Very Good Thing

 

[WEATHER53]

No it's illegal to influence them outside their homes.

Harassing them is protected under the 1st amendment.

That’s incorrect. It’s a convenient interpretation for your safe space.
You may express your discontent at the USSC outside the building and in other venues.
You may not go to their home and be at or on their personal property to express your discontent.
You find that wrongful to your wishes and feelings but that does not change the law.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Chris Christie and "bridgegate" ring a bell.

Vaguely, but I don't recall the circumstances.

They were cleared, even though people may have died in ambulances stuck in the traffic Christie caused.

Do you agree with that ruling?

 

[marvin martian]

No it's illegal to influence them outside their homes.

Harassing them is protected under the 1st amendment.

Nope. Read the law.

 

[MarathonMike]

NOPE. Invading their home is threatening and invading the privacy of a citizen.

When you violate my rights to peace and privacy your rights end. Liberals routinely tromp all over individual rights as it suits their agenda.

 

[struth]

This is what third world dictators do....the Demafascist have completely weaponzed the executive and started a war against the only branch of Govt that they can't totally control and continues to be a thorn in the side of their Demafasicst agenda.

 

[WEATHER53]

Nope. Read the law.

Already have and it’s been posted here half dozen times minimum and they have All readi it.
Denial of reality is very very dangerous to offer and to try to force others to abide by

 

[struth]

The people you demand be arrested are the little people.

um Joey Xiden and his demafasict admin aren't the little people...now iot's true, the brown shirts they sent out to try and murder a Justice, were "little people" in the cult of demafascism

 

[BlindBoo]

Whether the current protests violate the law is one thing; whether the protesters should be arrested is another. Prosecutors have wide discretion over what crimes that choose to prosecute. To win a conviction, they would have to prove an intent to influence.

“I think we are in a gray area, because it’s not clear what the protesters’ purpose is,” El-Haj says. “Is it really because they think they are going to pressure Brett Kavanaugh to change his mind? Or is it more general outrage at the courts?”

Protesters outside Kavanaugh’s home have waved placards with messages such as “Don’t like me at your house? Get out of my uterus.” At Alito’s home in Alexandria, Va., about 100 people marched and chanted “Abort the Court!” But rumors that Alito was forced to vacate to an undisclosed location for his safety were unsubstantiated.

Protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes: Ill-conceived? Illegal?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Noisy protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, in response to the leaked draft opinion indicating that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, raise at least two good questions. Are the protests a smart strategy? And are they legal?

www.mtsu.edu

As of this writing, local authorities have shown restraint. In Montgomery County, Md., where Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts live, police are telling protesters that, if they want to avoid arrest, they need to keep moving and avoid major disruptions.

As long as the protests remain peaceful and reasonably small, “it’s not in anyone’s interest to have people put in handcuffs and dragged away,” says Susan Gluck Mezey, a constitutional law expert at Loyola University Chicago.

 

[WEATHER53]

Whether the current protests violate the law is one thing; whether the protesters should be arrested is another. Prosecutors have wide discretion over what crimes that choose to prosecute. To win a conviction, they would have to prove an intent to influence.

“I think we are in a gray area, because it’s not clear what the protesters’ purpose is,” El-Haj says. “Is it really because they think they are going to pressure Brett Kavanaugh to change his mind? Or is it more general outrage at the courts?”

Protesters outside Kavanaugh’s home have waved placards with messages such as “Don’t like me at your house? Get out of my uterus.” At Alito’s home in Alexandria, Va., about 100 people marched and chanted “Abort the Court!” But rumors that Alito was forced to vacate to an undisclosed location for his safety were unsubstantiated.

Protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes: Ill-conceived? Illegal?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Noisy protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, in response to the leaked draft opinion indicating that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, raise at least two good questions. Are the protests a smart strategy? And are they legal?

www.mtsu.edu

As of this writing, local authorities have shown restraint. In Montgomery County, Md., where Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts live, police are telling protesters that, if they want to avoid arrest, they need to keep moving and avoid major disruptions.

As long as the protests remain peaceful and reasonably small, “it’s not in anyone’s interest to have people put in handcuffs and dragged away,” says Susan Gluck Mezey, a constitutional law expert at Loyola University Chicago.

Susie’s opinion and feelings does not change the law

 

[struth]

Whether the current protests violate the law is one thing; whether the protesters should be arrested is another. Prosecutors have wide discretion over what crimes that choose to prosecute. To win a conviction, they would have to prove an intent to influence.

“I think we are in a gray area, because it’s not clear what the protesters’ purpose is,” El-Haj says. “Is it really because they think they are going to pressure Brett Kavanaugh to change his mind? Or is it more general outrage at the courts?”

Protesters outside Kavanaugh’s home have waved placards with messages such as “Don’t like me at your house? Get out of my uterus.” At Alito’s home in Alexandria, Va., about 100 people marched and chanted “Abort the Court!” But rumors that Alito was forced to vacate to an undisclosed location for his safety were unsubstantiated.

Protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes: Ill-conceived? Illegal?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Noisy protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, in response to the leaked draft opinion indicating that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, raise at least two good questions. Are the protests a smart strategy? And are they legal?

www.mtsu.edu

As of this writing, local authorities have shown restraint. In Montgomery County, Md., where Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts live, police are telling protesters that, if they want to avoid arrest, they need to keep moving and avoid major disruptions.

As long as the protests remain peaceful and reasonably small, “it’s not in anyone’s interest to have people put in handcuffs and dragged away,” says Susan Gluck Mezey, a constitutional law expert at Loyola University Chicago.

Whether the current protests violate the law is one thing; whether the protesters should be arrested is another. Prosecutors have wide discretion over what crimes that choose to prosecute. To win a conviction, they would have to prove an intent to influence.

Very true, and it appears the Xiden Admin has made it their policy to not prosecute demafascist brownshirts that threaten judges and their families if they don't like them.