Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:55 am
xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 1:01 am
Digital Masta wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:34 am
I guess there's showing up at Supreme Court Justices' homes to "protest". Showing up and protesting at a place of work is one thing but showing up at one's home is inherently a threat.
I agree 100% on protesting at people's homes... BUT
It's also 100% legal. You'll almost never prove it's a threat unless someone says something really, really dumb (see: Jan 6 charges).
And remember, allowing all legal speech is good. Or something.
It actually may be illegal if actually pressed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e-illegal/
From the article
At issue is a statute enacted in 1950: Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code. The law states that it is illegal, “with the intent of influencing any judge,” to:
picket or parade “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer”
“or with such intent,” to resort “to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence”
The murky part is proving intent.
I disapprove of this protest, but they could simply argue that they are voicing their objection to the forthcoming ruling.
A protest by definition does not have to be done with the intent to influence or sway decision making. In effect that is the object for most, but if you bang that technicality drum in a court of law sans convincing evidence to the contrary, it's a tough hill to climb unless the judge is amenable to your argument.
The fact that they are targeting the conservative judges could easily be spun both ways:
Right:They're attempting to subvert the judiciary by means of scare tactics and threats
Left:They are making their voices heard to the ones they feel responsible for the ruling.
A competent lawyer would simply point out that these protests would probably be inevitable pre/post ruling, with "Post" essentially negating the idea that the purpose was influence.
I hate all of this crap.