May 10, 20224 yr 28 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Food for thought: During the Revolution, colonists protested outside of Royal officials' homes and burned them in effigy. Yeah, that's exactly like trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices into deciding the way that you demand that they do. It's time for pro-lifers to doxx the liberal justices and protest at their houses.
May 10, 20224 yr Author 3 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Yeah, that's exactly like trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices into deciding the way that you demand that they do. It's time for pro-lifers to doxx the liberal justices and protest at their houses. I mean, it is pretty similar. The only difference is the object is a Royal official vs. an SC Justice.
May 10, 20224 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: I mean, it is pretty similar. The only difference is the object is a Royal official vs. an SC Justice. No, it really isn't the same at all.
May 10, 20224 yr Author 4 minutes ago, The_Omega said: No, it really isn't the same at all. No, they're not the same, but they're similar. Both are public officials and government representatives. In both cases, the citizenry is conducting protests outside their private residences in response to public policies.
May 10, 20224 yr 14 minutes ago, TEW said: And as KZ pointed out, it’s literally illegal. It's a fine line as far as legality goes. Legally they're allowed to express their opinion on public spaces, so as long as they're in the street they're legal there. The state would then have to prove that the intention is to intimidate. If a prosecutor wanted to they probably could try, though it's still a high bar legally. It's not as cut and dry as "they can't be there".
May 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: No, they're not the same, but they're similar. Both are public officials and government representatives. In both cases, the citizenry is conducting protests outside their private residences in response to public policies. No they aren't the same at all. Judas f'ing priest.
May 10, 20224 yr Author 1 minute ago, The_Omega said: No they aren't the same at all. Judas f'ing priest. I'm not using that word. I agree that they're not exactly the same. I said they are similar. There are degrees of similarity. You should try explaining why they are not in any way similar, rather than just repetitively stating that "they are not the same."
May 10, 20224 yr 1 hour ago, Gannan said: Trumpbots: I can't believe she *checks notes* encouraged people outside judges homes to remain peaceful Woke liberals - it's okay to violate criminal statutes if our side supports it
May 10, 20224 yr Somehow I think some here would view it differently if people started protesting outside Krasner's home.
May 10, 20224 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Can anyone confirm this? This seems to be legitimate.
May 11, 20224 yr I can't imagine the reaction to a second amendment protest held in the same fashion. That one is actually in the constitution. 😏
May 11, 20224 yr Author 33 minutes ago, Toastrel said: This seems to be legitimate. Yup, the case is Madsen v. Women's Health Center
May 11, 20224 yr 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yup, the case is Madsen v. Women's Health Center As long as the protest is peaceful, it is a citizen's right, and duty, to speak out against a government official. If they start meandering into their homes, taking lecterns, that's another matter.
May 11, 20224 yr 5 minutes ago, Toastrel said: As long as the protest is peaceful, it is a citizen's right, and duty, to speak out against a government official. If they start meandering into their homes, taking lecterns, that's another matter. You just had to go back a page on this thread to find the statute in Chapter 73 of Title 18 - Crimes - Obstruction of Justice. You're not allowed to influence a judicial ruling with this sort of behavior - it's illegal. These are justices, not politicians. Protesting in front of Nancy Pelosi's house, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
May 11, 20224 yr 4 minutes ago, Toastrel said: As long as the protest is peaceful, it is a citizen's right, and duty, to speak out against a government official. If they start meandering into their homes, taking lecterns, that's another matter. Fire bombing. Don't forget the fire bombing. 🔥
May 11, 20224 yr 45 minutes ago, Toastrel said: This seems to be legitimate. It probably is 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm not using that word. I agree that they're not exactly the same. I said they are similar. There are degrees of similarity. You should try explaining why they are not in any way similar, rather than just repetitively stating that "they are not the same." Apples and oranges. Protests of the sort in front of Kavanaugh's and Alito's homes are illegal because they seek to influence a judicial outcome. Protests in front of a Congressman, cabinet officer or other member of the executive branch and the like are allowed because they seek to shape an outcome under the political process.
May 11, 20224 yr 5 minutes ago, Procus said: You just had to go back a page on this thread to find the statute in Chapter 73 of Title 18 - Crimes - Obstruction of Justice. You're not allowed to influence a judicial ruling with this sort of behavior - it's illegal. These are justices, not politicians. Protesting in front of Nancy Pelosi's house, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 Untwist your panties, Nancy. They are government employees. Trying to coerce them into a decision is illegal. Trying to obstruct justice (see Trump administration) is illegal. If they try to prevent a justice from doing their duty, that is illegal. If they try to prevent them from their job, that is illegal. Standing outside their houses saying "you suck" sure seems to be legal, hence, it is happening.
May 11, 20224 yr Author 7 minutes ago, Procus said: You just had to go back a page on this thread to find the statute in Chapter 73 of Title 18 - Crimes - Obstruction of Justice. You're not allowed to influence a judicial ruling with this sort of behavior - it's illegal. These are justices, not politicians. Protesting in front of Nancy Pelosi's house, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 2 minutes ago, Procus said: Apples and oranges. Protests of the sort in front of Kavanaugh's and Alito's homes are illegal because they seek to influence a judicial outcome. Protests in front of a Congressman, cabinet officer or other member of the executive branch and the like are allowed because they seek to shape an outcome under the political process. You'd have to prove intent to intimidate/obstruct, though. The law does not read that you can't petition there under any circumstances. Quote 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, 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's a fine line as far as legality goes. Legally they're allowed to express their opinion on public spaces, so as long as they're in the street they're legal there. The state would then have to prove that the intention is to intimidate. If a prosecutor wanted to they probably could try, though it's still a high bar legally. It's not as cut and dry as "they can't be there". This is why it's so hard to pin down Trump on charges. You have prove that someone had the intent and knowingly broke the law. Mens rea...
May 11, 20224 yr Most people who never question how Roe V Wade made it past the Supreme court in the first place can comprehend when it passed. It had to do more with what was going on at the time. There was 50 years to codify that into law but Democrats liked the 3 rail hammer to fund raise. They are no less adept at padding their coffers than republicans.
May 11, 20224 yr 11 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Untwist your panties, Nancy. They are government employees. Trying to coerce them into a decision is illegal. Trying to obstruct justice (see Trump administration) is illegal. If they try to prevent a justice from doing their duty, that is illegal. If they try to prevent them from their job, that is illegal. Standing outside their houses saying "you suck" sure seems to be legal, hence, it is happening. Oh yeah, that inconvenient federal statute should be ignored because . . . you said so
May 11, 20224 yr 10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: You'd have to prove intent to intimidate/obstruct, though. The law does not read that you can't petition there under any circumstances. This is why it's so hard to pin down Trump on charges. You have prove that someone had the intent and knowingly broke the law. Mens rea... Ok, and your point? That you know a fancy latin phrase?
May 11, 20224 yr Author 'Member when Republicans used to say "The government should fear the people?"
May 11, 20224 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: 'Member when Republicans used to say "The government should fear the people?" You seem to have a problem with that thought process a short time ago. Not that I'm against it but own that **** when the tables turn. Admit it.
May 11, 20224 yr Author 13 minutes ago, Procus said: Ok, and your point? That you know a fancy latin phrase? Trumpbots who went to NYU law don't like like it when you use dem fancy Latin words
Create an account or sign in to comment