Yes.....To the point the cops blocked them off.Are they blocking the street ? So far, I have not heard anything that they did that rises to the level of a crime
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes.....To the point the cops blocked them off.Are they blocking the street ? So far, I have not heard anything that they did that rises to the level of a crime
He feels it’s justTime, place, and manner. Federal law prohibits protesting at the homes of Justices. Merrick Garland has done nothing about it because he approves of the behavior.
So if someone came to your home and picketed 24/7, that would not intimidate you?Persuade? I do not think the law says that. Intimidate.? How.? They have not made any threats that I know of
There are laws that prohibit intimidating judges. You can protest, just not at their residences.
Time, place, and manner. Federal law prohibits protesting at the homes of Justices. Merrick Garland has done nothing about it because he approves of the behavior.
So if someone came to your home and picketed 24/7, that would not intimidate you?
Incorrect but excellent presentation of what your feelings wish were facts and lawDepends upon the severity of the matter being protested.
If important enough, then no one can stop protests.
Protests are guaranteed political expression, that NOTHING can over ride.
What are the SCOTUS protesters doing that is illegal, EXACTLY? Ever hear of the 1st Amendment?
So you saying Congress made a law prohibiting the peaceful assemble of citizens for redress of grievances from the Government?It is illegal to protest outside of USSC Justice's homes with the intention of intimidating or pressuring Justices into changing their decisions. This is considered attempting to obstruct justice.
You have obviously never heard of this, making you ignorant.
Even worse, you could have looked this up yourself, educated yourself, rather than self-idrntify as IGNORANT...
...which.means not only are you ignorant but LAZY as well.
So you saying Congress made a law prohibiting the peaceful assemble of citizens for redress of grievances from the Government?
I mean if it were an unruly mob of thousands of riled up rowdy pole carrying folks who bashed their way in to force their will on the Justices, it wouldn't be peaceful. But as it was it was about a hundred people for about 20 minutes. But that being said, if the AG decides any of them committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
Doesn’t match wishes and feelingsHow come you just ignored THREE links showing it is illegal to picket and protest at homes?
Humm. Perhaps you got me there. But I would raise 1st amendment issues regarding a law that prohibits protests that are just trying to influence someone, anyone.18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
www.law.cornell.edu
Humm. Perhaps you got me there. But I would raise 1st amendment issues regarding a law that prohibits protests that are just trying to influence someone, anyone.
Maybe they could argue that they are not trying to influence the Justices. They are just making their displeasure known. OK, I know. That is a stretch. And maybe Garland is just avoiding inflaming the situation further with arrests. .
Have some cooth you dolts and don’t pretend you have the right to go to SC justice house to voice your “displeasure” you pompous asswipe twitsHumm. Perhaps you got me there. But I would raise 1st amendment issues regarding a law that prohibits protests that are just trying to influence someone, anyone.
Maybe they could argue that they are not trying to influence the Justices. They are just making their displeasure known. OK, I know. That is a stretch. And maybe Garland is just avoiding inflaming the situation further with arrests. .
It’s not speech. It’s an unlawful actionFree speech isn't 100% which is why there are safeguards in place for the few idiots who has no concept of private and property rights importance when they protest.
Depends on how many police show up.So if someone came to your home and picketed 24/7, that would not intimidate you?
I stipulate that it appears to be illegal. However I'm not ignoring "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.How come you just ignored THREE links showing it is illegal to picket and protest at homes?
It’s not speech. It’s an unlawful action
And I agree. They are not speaking, they are engaging in unlawful act of influencing via disturbing and intimidationThat is what I said.
People picketing outside my home would be intimidating, with or without police, which I would call right away.Depends on how many police show up.
I stipulate that it appears to be illegal. However I'm not ignoring "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think it's stupid to march on anyone's home or to harass them in the public sphere, it looks bad and imo is unAmerican. I'd rather strike up a conversation over a beer or two.