Is There A Law Prohibiting protesting In Front Of A Judges Residence??

it's clear that is what they are trying to do. this is an intimidation campaign to sway the conservative justices to change their opinions. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I disagree. If anything the Judges would dig in against the Protesters.

I think it is an awareness protest, naturally targeted to get the most press coverage.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06...ing-the-judge/

Just food for thought.

Jen Goebbels doesn’t seem to think so.

I guess a Law really isn’t a Law if no body enforces it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

It's an unlawful assembly because it's on private property not public property. You also have to take in account the Judge's neighbors, they aren't public officials and don't have to hear all that shit about Abortion from a bunch of woke fucking idiots.

It's an unlawful assembly because it's on private property not public property. You also have to take in account the Judge's neighbors, they aren't public officials and don't have to hear all that shit about Abortion from a bunch of woke fucking idiots. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Once again.. SCOTUS themselves opened this door when they ruled that it was within 1A to protest at the homes of abortion clinic employees. Not the clinics themselves-- the homes of employees.



Rather ironic if you think about it....

At one point, SCOTUS ruled that it was OK to protest at the homes of abortion clinic employees. The issue isn't whether they are protesting at someones home. The issue is if they are doing so to impede justice or to attempt to sway a judicial decision. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Exactly. "We're just praying a bold of lightning doesn't strike the judge. Right in the head."

Turn the tables. Play music. Blast it.

For Clarence Thomas I would blast . . .



















This is psychological warfare baby!

I don't disagree.


Now prove it.


That's the problem. Any lawyer worth their salt would get it tossed out of court-- then likely counter-sue for violating their clients 1A rights.


I've seen a few signs that could result in a charge that would actually stick-- but most are too benign to be slam dunks in court-- and when dealing with an issue that can result in counter suits-- most municipalities are going to err on the side of caution. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

i don't have to prove it. there is law that prevents this. any lawyer? sweetpea, the entire Supreme Court are lawyers. every one liberal or conservative would strike down "free speech" in this clear case of intimidation.



there are reasons why laws exist against such intimidation. you don't want Roe v Wade overturned so you condone this type of activity. free speech has limits. just ask the justices,

Once again.. SCOTUS themselves opened this door when they ruled that it was within 1A to protest at the homes of abortion clinic employees. Not the clinics themselves-- the homes of employees.



Rather ironic if you think about it.... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Extremely ironic.

Maybe they can adopt the stupid strip club rule some cities have? Where you must remain 6 feet from a Dancer. Protest at least 6 feet from the Justice's homes.

... You liberals are being silly about this... The Law is the LAW.
Cannot protest at the Judges' houses.

### Salty

Extremely ironic.

Maybe they can adopt the stupid strip club rule some cities have? Where you must remain 6 feet from a Dancer. Protest at least 6 feet from the Justice's homes. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

both of you give too much weight to free speech. those workers were not involved in any legal proceedings, the justices are.

... You liberals are being silly about this... The Law is the LAW.
Cannot protest at the Judges' houses.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

salty! salty! salty!



bajhaahaaaaaa

... You liberals are being silly about this... The Law is the LAW.
Cannot protest at the Judges' houses.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I'm guessing you missed the part where SCOTUS themselves struck that down? The legal question is not whether or not they can protest outside the residences (they can). The question is whether or not they are attempting to sway a judicial decision (they are-- but proving it is another matter).

I'm guessing you missed the part where SCOTUS themselves struck that down? The legal question is not whether or not they can protest outside the residences (they can). The question is whether or not they are attempting to sway a judicial decision (they are-- but proving it is another matter). Originally Posted by Grace Preston

do you realize what you just typed? if it's that obvious .. it's obvious. and then there is this ..


Security tightened for Supreme Court justices as protests extend to Alito's home

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/security-t...ycsrp_catchall


so much for free speech and the right to protest eh sweetpea?

I'm guessing you missed the part where SCOTUS themselves struck that down? The legal question is not whether or not they can protest outside the residences (they can). The question is whether or not they are attempting to sway a judicial decision (they are-- but proving it is another matter). Originally Posted by Grace Preston

... They DID NOT strike it down... You CANNOT threaten
or assemble to try to sway opinion. They are the Supreme Court.

Learn the Law!

### Salty

Not sure how your article relates to the right to protest. People having the right to protest doesn't mean that those that are being protested don't have the right to security details.



Something being obvious doesn't mean it will meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.


Its obvious that Casey Anthony killed her child.


Its obvious that OJ killed Nicole


But they couldn't be convicted.

... They DID NOT strike it down... You CANNOT threaten
or assemble to try to sway opinion. They are the Supreme Court.

Learn the Law!

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Why are you trying to argue with me when I said exactly what you just said. SCOTUS DID strike down the notion that you cannot protest at peoples private residences. I specifically said that people can ABSOLUTELY protest at their homes-- however, if there is proof that it is being done to attempt to sway judicial decisions, THAT is the actionable crime, not the location of said protest.


The ISSUE-- is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the assembly is an attempt to sway. Sure-- we all know it is... but having the level of proof required in court is another matter.

... Title 18... Part 1... Chapter 73.

IF YOU are protesting at A SUPREME COURT Judge's home.
It's surely meets the definition of Actionable Crime.
No doubt the level of proof is there.
They are NOT protesting because the Judge is a axe murderer.
They're protesting a possible change in the abortion law.

However, you and I seem to be on the same side.

### Salty

... Title 18... Part 1... Chapter 73.

IF YOU are protesting at A SUPREME COURT Judge's home.
It's surely meets the definition of Actionable Crime.
No doubt the level of proof is there.
They are NOT protesting because the Judge is a axe murderer.
They're protesting a possible change in the abortion law.

However, you and I seem to be on the same side.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

As I asked. Is it really a law if nobody bothers to enforce it?