May 11, 20223 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, 20223 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
May 11, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Trumpbots who went to NYU law don't like like it when you use dem fancy Latin words You can use it all you like - but you'll sound ridiculous. People in the profession don't talk that way. But knock yourself out. Enjoy.
May 11, 20223 yr Author 7 minutes ago, lynched1 said: 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. I don't believe I've ever directly commented on it here. I always found the saying to have figurative, not literal value. The right has often used this phrase in a literal sense.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 hours 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". No, read the law. "Influence.” There is absolutely no reason to go to a judge’s personal home if you’re not attempting to influence them. It’s beyond cut and dry. It’s illegal, full stop, and pretending there is any ambiguity at all is just a lie because you’re sympathetic to the cause.
May 11, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I don't believe I've ever directly commented on it here. I always found the saying to have figurative, not literal value. The right has often used this phrase in a literal sense. As have the left. In action if not in word.
May 11, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, Procus said: You can use it all you like - but you'll sound ridiculous. People in the profession don't talk that way. But knock yourself out. Enjoy.
May 11, 20223 yr The light has been turned on? Pro-abortion activists that have been protesting at churches and the homes of Supreme Court justices over the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade have a new target on the agenda: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
May 11, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, TEW said: No, read the law. "Influence.” There is absolutely no reason to go to a judge’s personal home if you’re not attempting to influence them. It’s beyond cut and dry. It’s illegal, full stop, and pretending there is any ambiguity at all is just a lie because you’re sympathetic to the cause. Trouble is we have federal prosecutors who follow the Larry Krasner method of prosecution, or more to the point, lack thereof
May 11, 20223 yr 40 minutes ago, TEW said: No, read the law. "Influence.” There is absolutely no reason to go to a judge’s personal home if you’re not attempting to influence them. It’s beyond cut and dry. It’s illegal, full stop, and pretending there is any ambiguity at all is just a lie because you’re sympathetic to the cause. So libertarian of you to make government officials protected people.
May 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, lynched1 said: I can't imagine the reaction to a second amendment protest held in the same fashion. That one is actually in the constitution. 😏 True. What you have to ask yourself is… what were the last 2 gun restricting laws put into place and were there protests? The bump stock ban signed by trump went into law without a peep really. The Brady bill, triggered by the Reagan assassination attempt, but eventually signed into law by Clinton (if I remember correctly). Ultimately, Democrats talk about gun access control and vetting buyers, Republicans put gun bans in place and people who listen to the NRA just do what they are told because they’re stooges.
May 11, 20223 yr Author 13 minutes ago, Toastrel said: So libertarian of you to make government officials protected people. Fascists gonna fascist...
May 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: No, read the law. "Influence.” There is absolutely no reason to go to a judge’s personal home if you’re not attempting to influence them. It’s beyond cut and dry. It’s illegal, full stop, and pretending there is any ambiguity at all is just a lie because you’re sympathetic to the cause. Uh, no dude. It's not.
May 11, 20223 yr Not even close to cut and dried: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/residential-picketing-in-virginia-outside-a-justices-home-or-otherwise/ It would be difficult to prosecute, and broader statutes specific to Virginia may prove unconstitutional. I think it's abhorrent behavior and will have a blowback effect. But my feelings on Roe factor in not at all on whether it's protected by the constitution or not.
May 11, 20223 yr 55 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Not even close to cut and dried: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/residential-picketing-in-virginia-outside-a-justices-home-or-otherwise/ It would be difficult to prosecute, and broader statutes specific to Virginia may prove unconstitutional. I think it's abhorrent behavior and will have a blowback effect. But my feelings on Roe factor in not at all on whether it's protected by the constitution or not. The courts will get into a balancing test if it is ever litigated, which I highly doubt would happen.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Toastrel said: So libertarian of you to make government officials protected people. I believe in the rule of law. Don’t like the law? Then change it. Want abortion to be a constitutional right? Then amend it. This bullsh** where laws are selectively enforced based on who the DA is and who the person breaking the law is has to stop. It’s anarchy-tyranny and I want a part of neither anarchy nor tyranny.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, MidMoFo said: Republicans put gun bans in place and people who listen to the NRA just do what they are told because they’re stooges. Or they do what they are going to do anyway and no one is the wiser. Just a thought.
May 11, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: There are homes everywhere, that kind of regulation on speech could get pretty dicey. I would expect a free-speech absolutist such as yourself to perceive the problem here. I never mentioned regulation. Where do you get that?
May 11, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, TEW said: It’s purposefully left ambiguous because they do encourage it. And what they are encouraging is illegal. She was just sloppy. The WH doesn’t support it but they are too afraid of upsetting their base to say so.
May 11, 20223 yr 8 hours 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". Yep and that right to public demonstration needs to stay in place. That shouldn’t stop a WH from encouraging people not to exercise that right in front of private homes of top govt officials in a situation like this one.
May 11, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, TEW said: I believe in the rule of law. Don’t like the law? Then change it. Want abortion to be a constitutional right? Then amend it. This bullsh** where laws are selectively enforced based on who the DA is and who the person breaking the law is has to stop. It’s anarchy-tyranny and I want a part of neither anarchy nor tyranny. Sure sounds like the opposite. It legal to protest outside a citizen's house, but not outside a government official's. Sure sounds like a selectively enforced pile of horse crap.
May 11, 20223 yr Author 4 hours ago, DrPhilly said: I never mentioned regulation. Where do you get that? A general statute saying that you can't protest "outside of homes" would be a regulation, and an ambiguous one at that.
May 11, 20223 yr If Kavanaugh’s neighbors organized the protest I’d guess that would be hard to prosecute.
May 11, 20223 yr Who cares about what's legal or not? Leave these people alone. They have families and deserve to have some semblance of peace when they're at home.
Create an account or sign in to comment