DOJ silent on abortion protests at justices' homes despite federal law prohibiting 'pickets' to influence case

[j brown's body]

Close, but appeals are not based on the facts of the case - they are based on the application of the law(s) in that case. So the opinions are based of the legal claims made (the basis for the appeal) and the totality of applicable laws, precedents and (ultimately) the Constitution itself. The fact that most SCOTUS opinions are split decisions indicates that opinion plays a large part in formulating them.

In this case, they are based on the justices personal opinion of abortion.

 

[Overitall]

It isn't news to me, but it surely would be to Amy Coney Barrett.

Amy Coney Barrett says the supreme court aren’t ‘partisan hacks’. Oh really? | David Sirota

Never mind the court’s wildly rightwing bent and secretive ‘shadow docket’ – or Barrett’s refusal to recuse herself from a case with a clear conflict of interest

www.theguardian.com

Are you unaware of the fact that the SC has both a left and right leaning bent to it? You're just upset that there's not a more left leaning bench. Elections have consequences, Obama said. I think he was trying to tell Republicans to get over it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In this case, they are based on the justices personal opinion of abortion.

As was the Roe v. Wade opinion which introduced trimesters and viability.

 

[bubbabgone]

That is from the law you cite

No it isn't. I quoted the law to you. That's what those quotation marks signified.

 

[vegas giants]

No it isn't. I quoted the law to you. That's what those quotation marks signified.

Read it again

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[dcsports]

Because if you read the post I responded to both parts individually. No content was snipped.

WW

The two go together. There have been numerous time and place qualifiers given on protected speech. Having a protest in front of the SCOTUS building, in a place historically used for protests for decades, is different than a place that falls in a different category (like their homes) ,.

 

[JasperL]

No it isn't. I quoted the law to you. That's what those quotation marks signified.

The law in context:

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

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,

 

[Overitall]

As was the Roe v. Wade opinion which introduced trimesters and viability.

But they liked that opinion.

 

[JasperL]

The two go together. There have been numerous time and place qualifiers given on protected speech. Having a protest in front of the SCOTUS building, in a place historically used for protests for decades, is different than a place that falls in a different category (like their homes) ,.

And yet the law refers to that building as off limits, same as residences.....

 

[CaughtInThe]

i wonder if even ONE republican here started a thread about protecting women's privacy/rights (instead of all the diversions).

 

[vegas giants]

The two go together. There have been numerous time and place qualifiers given on protected speech. Having a protest in front of the SCOTUS building, in a place historically used for protests for decades, is different than a place that falls in a different category (like their homes) ,.

If you wish to invoke this law it outlaws protest at the scotus building too

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ttwtt78640]

But they liked that opinion.

Yep, that makes all the difference required by them.

 

[Overitall]

Yep, that makes all the difference required by them.

There have been opinions that I haven't agreed with, but I have the highest respect for the process. I enjoy reading the dissenting opinions more than that of the majority even when I agree with the majority.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What case are the protestors influencing?

Attempting to influence Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right, they can protest anywhere but in places the judges might actually see the protesters!!

Just about.

WW

 

[vegas giants]

Just about.

WW

Clearly unconstitutional

 

[Overitall]

Clearly unconstitutional

I deny that!

 

[vegas giants]

I deny that!

No one cares

 

[WorldWatcher]

Clearly unconstitutional

That would be a case that would go through the distict, appeals, and to the SCOTUS.

Don't hold your breath though has the SCOTUS has upheld time, location, and distance law in the past.

WW

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't condone protesting in front of anyone's residence but please tell me what specific law they are breaking?

I keep seeing some quoting the US 1508 law but that only applies to certain state and federal employees.

United States Code: Political Activity of Certain State and Local Employees, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508​

United States Code: Political Activity of Certain State and Local Employees, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 (Suppl. 2 1964).

www.loc.gov

You (or they) are looking at the wrong law.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[j brown's body]

Explain to me how people who support bearing arms to overthrow a government that tramples on rights can be upset over protesters intimidating a government that is trampling on rights.

 

[vegas giants]

That would be a case that would go through the distict, appeals, and to the SCOTUS.

Don't hold your breath though has the SCOTUS has upheld time, location, and distance law in the past.

WW

Then arrest them all. Call out the national guard if needed


I would love that

 

[dcsports]

And yet the law refers to that building as off limits, same as residences.....

If you either to invoke this law it outlaws protest at the scotus building too

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

Again, constitution trumps the law. In this case, someone prosecuted for protesting in front of SCOTUS would have both a first amendment issue and an unequal treatment one given that free speech has been allowed there.

1) Do either of you have an example of a case where someone was prosecuted under one of those laws for protesting in front of SCOTUS?

2) Maybe I'm missing your point, but how does any of this make it OK to share the personal information of some justices (dox them) or have a protest in front of their homes?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't condone protesting in front of anyone's residence but please tell me what specific law they are breaking?

I keep seeing some quoting the US 1508 law but that only applies to certain state and federal employees.

United States Code: Political Activity of Certain State and Local Employees, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508​

United States Code: Political Activity of Certain State and Local Employees, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 (Suppl. 2 1964).

www.loc.gov

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

18 USC, not 5 USC.

WW

 

[JasperL]

Just about.

WW

Yeah, hence why it's repugnant to any reasonable interpretation of the purpose of the 1A. The constitution cannot have protected speech, and protest, to after the fact useless exercises of blowing off steam.