It's Against The Law To Protest Outside Supreme Court Justices Homes

1. 86

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   
   It's Against The Law To Protest Outside Supreme Court Justices Homes. The Biden administration is once again ignoring a problem and ignoring the laws that protect our Supreme Court Justices.
   
   This is nothing new, but it certainly shows the Biden administration is politicking with little care for the safety of the Supreme Court Justices and their families. Not sure why these protesters are not being handled by law enforcement.
   
   The DOJ is also ignoring this problem. Unstable nut jobs are nightly protesting outside the homes of several justices. It's just a matter of time before violence breaks out.
   
   A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge's residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in ...
   
   In my view --- these protesters need to be told to go somewhere else or be arrested. We have laws,  time to arrest these lawbreakers.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Protests are and have been common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation but generally are not.
      
      Even under this statute, protests are criminal only if they are done 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."
      
      Do people seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to protestors demands?
      
      If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views.
      
      The Supreme Court,  McCullen v. Coakley in 2014,  in a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”
      
      The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "Protests are and have been common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation but generally are not."
         
         
         So true, I guess that is what we have come to accept. Not sure why we have laws. seems a very unintelligent society that makes laws, but does not keep them.
         
         "Do people seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to protestors demands?"
         
         Hard to tell... I don't think the protest will change any decisions of the
         court.
         
         At any rate, they as od yet have stayed peaceful. They are in a way doing the pro-lifers a favor. It will stir the emotions of citizens to take sides. This is never a bad thing.  The problem will be in the public eye, most likely for the summer. In Nov, it may even affect the elections.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have a clue as to whether the law should apply, or not, but I think it should not if the protests are on public ground.
            
            And that stinks considering how much I don't like protesters, or their causes, that do it in front of a family's home. Protests like this turn me away from a cause stronger than any positive that might cause me to pause and consider it.
            
            Maybe getting the spotlight of publicity is worth it, overall, but I think the "how" of getting that spotlight matters.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well, GA, I like protesters as the linchpin of the right to petition government over grievances and to peaceably assemble. Unlike January 6, 2021.
               
               If I were these folks though, I would not focus on the Justices but on the statehouses of the crimson states. While I don't believe that Supreme Court Justices can be intimidated in this way,  elected officials can be. So, we need to turn our turrets in the right direction.

               replyreport
            2. 86

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               The law applies to judges' homes. And our laws are made to be followed by all, even those protesting abortion. The law is very clear.
               https://uscode.lawi.us/18-usc-1507/
               
               I believe these kinds of protests and these types of protesters that think they are above the law, as a rule just disgust others.
               
               The spotlight is already dim... not much is being reported on these protests. This was a poorly timed political stunt, that had a little splash. The air is almost out of the ballon. 
               
               Social media is becoming bored with the subject.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know about the applicability of the law—either way, to this incidence.
                  
                  I hear there are interpretations that say the protests are a legal expression of free speech because it can't be proven they are an attempt to sway or intimidate the justices, they can plausibly say they are protesting the decision, not intimidating the justices to change their minds.
                  
                  I don't believe that, and I don't think it is 'right' to protest at their homes. Even so, I don't think charges would survive a challenge. So are they breaking the law? I'd say you can't prove it in court.
                  
                  But, I think you are right about the political stunt stuff.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
      2. 97

         Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It is against the law to protest at a Supreme Court Justice's home.
         
         That is covered in 18 US Code Section 1507
         
         "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.
         
         Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."
         
         So, if they're not trying to influence a justice, what are they doing at their home?  Why not get a permit and engage in a legal protest?
         
         Those doing this should be arrested.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, these people need to be warned to leave, and if they won't leave, they need to be arrested. I for one am sick of watching these people ignore our laws.

            replyreport
      3. 95

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "Do people seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to protestors demands?"
         
         If not then why did they choose that particular residential address to protest?  I think the goal is apparent, and it isn't to convince the court to render a decision based on law.

         replyreport
2. 86

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   These protesters are breaking the law when they take their protest to Judge's Homes... I would like these people arrested.  We have laws, these laws are for all of us. It applies to leftist protesters too...
   
   LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1507
   18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
   U.S. Code
   https://uscode.lawi.us/18-usc-1507/
   
   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.
   
   Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
   
   Protesting at justices' homes is illegal. What is Biden doing about it?
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … s-illegal/

   replyreport