While Biden DOJ Refuses To Enforce Federal Law In Prorection Of USSC Justices, FBI Confirmed Targeting Parents Under Counter-Terrorism Provisions

Are they blocking the street ? So far, I have not heard anything that they did that rises to the level of a crime
Yes.....To the point the cops blocked them off.

Pro-abortion-protesters-march-to-homes-of-Justices-Kavanaugh-and-Roberts-1024x576.jpg


Alito-protest-1110x740.jpg


Protests-at-Supreme-Court-justices-homes-provoke-backlash-in-Congress.jpg
 
There are laws that prohibit intimidating judges. You can protest, just not at their residences.

Depends 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.
 
So if someone came to your home and picketed 24/7, that would not intimidate you?

I would not like it if there were protesting at my home, but I also choose NOT to be a judge.
While I do not like protesting at homes, there can be no legal law preventing it.
Protesting is a supreme right, beyond any authority any government may claim it has.
 
Depends 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.
Incorrect but excellent presentation of what your feelings wish were facts and law
 
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.
 
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.

How 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.

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. .
 
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. .

Free 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.
 
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 twits
 
So if someone came to your home and picketed 24/7, that would not intimidate you?
Depends on how many police show up.
How come you just ignored THREE links showing it is illegal to picket and protest at homes?
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.
 
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.
People picketing outside my home would be intimidating, with or without police, which I would call right away.
 

Forum List

Back
Top