Va. And Md. Governors Demand Garland Ban Protests Outside Justices Homes

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s in the works and before this week is out you libs will be wailing.

Oh, so you just struggle with basic verb conjugation , à la a young child, or a person learning English as their second language.

Or you just realized you made up something dumb and wrong and are now backpedalling.

Pick your poison.

 

[Missourian]

The very first part:

"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"

A prosecution of any of them would have to prove intent. Not easy.

That's why States are considering passing their own laws that make no mention of intent.

You can claim there is intent. But the hopes and dreams of an internet poster are not how these things are decided, in our country.

I'm positive that no one with the impaired level of critical thinking skills that allow them to vote for Democrats would possibly be capable of divining the intent of pro-abortion protesters protesting at supreme court justices homes before a decision on an abortion case.

To you I honestly believe it is unfathomable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm positive that no one with the impaired level of critical thinking skills that allow them to vote for Democrats would possibly be capable of divining the intent of pro-abortion protesters protesting at supreme court justices homes before a decision on an abortion case.

To you I honestly believe it is unfathomable.

Well, good for you, but that isn't a compelling rant. It isnt even an argument..

You don't win court cases by stomping your feet amd insisting on a claim repeatedly.

A one has to do is to say their intent is to raise awareness.

The burden lies on you to prove otherwise.

You know,the best system ever invented.

 

[Missourian]

Well, good for you, but that isn't a compelling rant. It isnt even an argument..

You don't win court cases by stomping your feet amd insisting on a claim repeatedly.

A one has to do is to say their intent is to raise awareness.

The burden lies on you to prove otherwise.

You know,the best system ever invented.

Negative Ghostrider...

You can raise awareness anywhere else...when you decide to "raise awareness" in front of a jurist deciding a case...your intent is known.

Using your idiotic argument...the KKK could burn a cross in front of your house "to raise awareness of fire danger"...and there would be not a thing law enforcement could do about it. You would have to PROVE that the intent was to intimidate.

But as you know...that is not the way it works.

The act plus the location proves the intent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Missourian

"You can raise awareness anywhere else..."

Oops. Not at all what the law says. Sorry.

Again, this isn't decided on the hopes and dreams of an internet poster.

 

[Missourian]

Missourian

"You can raise awareness anywhere else..."

Oops. Not at all what the law says. Sorry.

Again, this isn't decided on the hopes and dreams of an internet poster.

Proven wrong, poster falls back on "your opinion doesn't count".

Unfortunately for that poster...it's not just my opinion...it's the opinion of experts...

From the left biases Washington Post...

"Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University’s law school, said that the current protests at justices’ homes qualify under the statute and that the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional.
“The statute would seem to apply both because … they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations,” Abu El-Haj said, “but also because the statute has a catchall ‘resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.’ ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

Feel free to argue that your hopes and dreams trump their legal expertise...

In the mean time, savor once again the agony of defeat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Proven wrong, poster falls back on "your opinion doesn't count".

You are delusional.

We literally posted the exact letter of the law.

It speaks to intent,very specifically.

At no point does it ban protesting to raise awareness.

At no point does it ban all protests near the homes of scotus judges. Thus the attempts to pass State laws that do this without regard to intent.

It's almost like they read and understand the law,and you don't.

Actually,it IS that.


The letter of the law shows you are full of shit.

None of your whining about me will affect that

 

[struth]

You are delusional.

We literally posted the exact letter of the law.

It speaks to intent,very specifically.

At no point does it ban protesting to raise awareness.

The letter of the law shows you are full of shit.

None of your whining about me will affect that

what awareness are they raising with threats outside the judges homes?

 

[Missourian]

You are delusional.

We literally posted the exact letter of the law.

It speaks to intent,very specifically.

At no point does it ban protesting to raise awareness.

The letter of the law shows you are full of shit.

None of your whining about me will affect that

"You don't win court cases by stomping your feet amd insisting on a claim repeatedly." --Fucktard from Indiana post #123

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"You don't win court cases by stomping your feet amd insisting on a claim repeatedly." --Fucktard from Indiana post #123


View attachment 660171

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

Posting an agreeable opinion is a reiteration of your opinion, not support for it.

That's something you should have learned during your basic education.

That author is agreeing they have the intent to influence the judges. Some do, no doubt. Maybe they all do.

But believing that isn't enough to prosecute. It must be proven to a court.

That's harder than writing an op-Ed, or stomping your feet on a message board.

And that's all.

Thus the attempts by the States to pass stricter laws on the matter.

And even then,the protests will continue. They will simply stand there quietly with no signs and claim their right to be present on public property.

"You are protesting!"

"Prove it!"

 

[pknopp]

no they haven’t! all that’s been leaked is a draft of an opinion

moreover even if they. did they still can’t threaten them

The ruling has been made. It takes time to get the rulings and opinions ready to go.

 

[pknopp]

But it is unlawful to go to their home and do so.
Presuming that they were on the sidewalk then they are in the right of way BUT the owner is charged with maintaining that area and as such courts have ruled with that responsibility that rights are conferred
Simply put, despite liberals doing apples to donuts Once Again, you can protest in front of the SC building; you can’t do that at a SC justice residence.

Lol.....I can only chuckle when people just make stuff up. Lol

 

[struth]

The ruling has been made. It takes time to get the rulings and opinions ready to go.

they haven’t released the opinion. it’s not done.

the only thing that’s been done is a draft of one justices opinion has been leaked

 

[pknopp]

they haven’t released the opinion. it’s not done.

the only thing that’s been done is a draft of one justices opinion has been leaked

That's what was released weeks ago. To reiterate.....weeks ago.

 

[struth]

That's what was released weeks ago. To reiterate.....weeks ago.

yeah not the actual opinion….but a draft

hence why the brownshirts are outside justices house now threatening them attempting to get them to rule a certain.way

 

[Missourian]

Posting an agreeable opinion is a reiteration of your opinion, not support for it.

That's something you should have learned during your basic education.

That author is agreeing they have the intent to influence the judges. Some do, no doubt. Maybe they all do.

But that isn't enough to prosecute. It must be proven to a court.

That's harder than writing an op-Ed, or stomping your feet on a message board.

And that's all.

Thus the attempts by the States to pass stricter laws on the matter.

And even then,the protests will continue. They will simply stand there quietly with no signs and claim their right to be present on public property.

"You are protesting!"

"Prove it!"

Your ignorance is astounding.

"Note that with regard to general intent crimes, intent does not have to be specifically proven. This would be a near impossible thing to do since there is no way to allow the jury to see the defendant's thought processes. Rather, intent can be inferred from the commission of the act itself and the surrounding circumstances. In other words, it can be presumed that the defendant intended to commit an act by virtue of the fact that he voluntarily committed it. See State v. Carlson, 93 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. 1958).

Common Law Mens Rea

Experts? Fuck 'em.

The law? Fuck it.

Stick to your guns dumbshit.

You can prevail through the sheer depth of your stupidity.

 

[struth]

this is why leaks at the court are so dangerous. This leaked draft, not the final ruling, has so many people jumping the gun and resorting to threatening judges to try and sway their opinions.

 

[2aguy]

The Republican governors of Maryland and Virginia are calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to ban protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices living in those states.

Youngkin actually tried to make Alito’s entire neighborhood sacred, or at least heavily restricted, ground. He asked local authorities to set up a perimeter around the area, limiting who could enter, and offered the state police to help. Fairfax County officials essentially told him to shove it.

People going into clinics for legal medical care are routinely harassed and threatened by anti-abortion protesters. Abortion providers live under constant threat. But a few candlelight vigils and peaceful protests directed at Supreme Court justices who hold power over the lives of everyone in this country and we’re supposed to be shocked and deeply concerned.

The Supreme Court has never been as insulated from politics as its defenders would have us believe, but now? The Supreme Court of Kavanaugh and Alito and Barrett? Of Clarence Thomas and his insurrectionist wife? A Supreme Court with five justices nominated by men who got into the White House after losing the popular vote? Spare me the pieties about the sanctity of the institution.

Virginia and Maryland governors demand that Garland ban protest outside justices' homes

The Republican governors of Maryland and Virginia are calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to ban protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices living in those states. Maryland’s Larry Hogan and Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin cited a 1950 law...

m.dailykos.com

Yep, conservatives can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Good for Fairfax county.

Moron....it is against federal law, right now, to go to Supreme Court justices' homes.......he simply isn't enforcing existing law because he is a vile, disgusting leftist piece of garbage...who wants to see a crowd murder a conservative justice...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your ignorance is astounding.

"Note that with regard to general intent crimes, intent does not have to be specifically proven. This would be a near impossible thing to do since there is no way to allow the jury to see the defendant's thought processes. Rather, intent can be inferred from the commission of the act itself and the surrounding circumstances. In other words, it can be presumed that the defendant intended to commit an act by virtue of the fact that he voluntarily committed it. See State v. Carlson, 93 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. 1958).

Common Law Mens Rea

Experts? Fuck 'em.

The law? Fuck it.

Stick to your guns dumbshit.

You can prevail through the sheer depth of your stupidity.

It does have to be proven, insomuch as convincing a judge or jury that the intent is there.

You misunderstand your own cited material. It is saying it does not have to be strictly "proven", just as it was not strictly proven that Scott Peterson killed Lacy Peterson.

There was no video or confession.

What happened was that the crime was proven to the court using the inference of the evidence.

And no, that does not refer to someone stompngtheir feet insisting that someone committed a crime or had intent.

Evidence of that intent still must be presented.

Continue searching your legal sources, without the specific intent only of cherry picking something you think supports your opinion. You will find that demonstrating intent does require evidence.

So, if it will help your misunderstanding, let's call it "demonstrating" instead of "proving".

In any case, the hard part is CONVINCING. Convincing the jury or the court.

And that's why no arrests thus far. It's a tough case to prove in court. It is tough to convince a jury or a judge of what is in someone's head.

 

[2aguy]

The Republican governors of Maryland and Virginia are ignorant and ridiculous.

The AG has no such authority.

Wow....you really are stupid.....

It is against Federal Law....existing Federal Law, to protest outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices...you idiot....as you sit there and posture and preen as an alleged Constitutional scholar....

He has full authority to order the arrest of those democrat party controlled brown shirts...he is simply allowing someone an opportunity to murder one or more Conservative Justices...