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

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (11 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15993362.jpg
    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.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      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.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          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

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            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.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image86
            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              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

      2. Readmikenow profile image97
        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          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.

      3. wilderness profile image95
        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.

  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
    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/

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)