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

Plenty of laws that don't get enforced

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, Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Did you see the peaceful protest?

Mostly a bunch of women!

You scared/ intimidated by a few ladies exercising the right to peacefully protest?

As I asked. Is it really a law if nobody bothers to enforce it? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Be like making a law against farting.

Like Grace had continually pointed out....very very hard to prove intent.

All I saw was peaceful protest. Anybody crying about that needs to go back and see all those nutcases protesting in front of abortion clinics....now those were some nutcases. But even those nut jobs had the constitutional right to protest

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

Well if that's true that's a big mistake they made. The direction this Society is headed with emotions high with political issues chaos is going to eventually get worse and it's going to get real nasty. Forget about peaceful Protest they don't exist anymore and the rule of law is a thing of the past.

... Once again - The LAW IS - you cannot protest at the home
of a Federal Judge. ... period... full stop.

You CAN protest most anywhere else.

### Salty

... Once again - The LAW IS - you cannot protest at the home of a Federal Judge. ... period... full stop.

You CAN protest most anywhere else.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Many of these women are seriously pissed off. I expect them to get arrested, post bail and then go right back and protest some more.

Depends. While it is not technically illegal to protest in front of a judges house-- it IS illegal if you are protesting to attempt to interfere with a ruling or to try to persuade a change to a ruling.


The trick is proving the intent. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Same thing with the use of deadly force. You don't have to prove you were in danger only that you THOUGHT you were in danger.

Same thing with the use of deadly force. You don't have to prove you were in danger only that you THOUGHT you were in danger. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Extreme violence to protesters is coming.They aren't all that peaceful and many people have had enough of it. I suspect we haven't seen nothing yet.

Peaceful protest is not against the law. Trespass, if it occurs, IS.

Maxine Waters and other elected Democrats along with liberal leftists have publicly advocated for violent confrontation with those they do not agree with.

The potential exists for something serious to happen, if it is only a tragic accident.

If you are one who characterizes the Jan 6th events as an attempted coupe, please consider that we have three Co-Equal branches of government. Threats against the well-being of any one of the Supreme Court judges is no less an attack on our government. Something like that has already occurred when a liberal-socialist supporter of Sen. Saunders attempted to assassinate Republican members of Congress as they practiced baseball. Several were seriously wounded.

That attack was no less an armed insurrection.

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'm open to anybody putting on their defense atty. hat and give us an argument that says they aren't intending to intimidate, aren't intending to reverse what they think these judges are "thinking about doing".

I can't think of a single "convincing" thing a defense attorney could say to convince me these people aren't there to intimidate since the judges are still considering their decision. If the case was already decided, the protesters could then say they are protesting a decision already made so no intimidation to change their mind is in play.


To suggest this is merely an "information" protest is silly beyond belief. Are they informing the public that this decision will not end abortion? If not and they are saying that this decision will end abortion, that is disinformation and we all know that must be stopped at all cost, right?


And how silly to suggest that these protesters are merely attempting to "inform" the justices with information they may not be aware of.


Abortion providers are not judges. Judges are a legally protected class all their own. But of course this DOJ wants to investigate parents trying to intimidate school boards, not a protected class that I'm aware of but doesn't want to investigate people actually violating a law that specifically protects judges.


Hell, I could argue this in court and win.

Did you see the peaceful protest?

Mostly a bunch of women!

You scared/ intimidated by a few ladies exercising the right to peacefully protest? Originally Posted by WTF

i wouldn't be you twit the point is it is attempting to influence these justices which is prohibited by law for their role in the legal system. same applies to jurors. it's one of the reasons in some high profile cases the jurors are sequestered in hotels to keep people from harassing them. or bribing them to influence a verdict.


recall that happened in the rittenhouse case where msnbc tried to follow the jury to their hotel and got caught for it. the judge banned msnbc from being in the court during the trial. the reporter and news crew were lucky that's all that happened to them.


so much for free speech and the "rights" of the press. did ya think that was right? probably not because you're one of the goobers in this forum who is convinced rittenhouse is a "murderer" aren't ya?

I'm open to anybody putting on their defense atty. hat and give us an argument that says they aren't intending to intimidate, aren't intending to reverse what they think these judges are "thinking about doing".

I can't think of a single "convincing" thing a defense attorney could say to convince me these people aren't there to intimidate since the judges are still considering their decision. If the case was already decided, the protesters could then say they are protesting a decision already made so no intimidation to change their mind is in play.


To suggest this is merely an "information" protest is silly beyond belief. Are they informing the public that this decision will not end abortion? If not and they are saying that this decision will end abortion, that is disinformation and we all know that must be stopped at all cost, right?


And how silly to suggest that these protesters are merely attempting to "inform" the justices with information they may not be aware of.


Abortion providers are not judges. Judges are a legally protected class all their own. But of course this DOJ wants to investigate parents trying to intimidate school boards, not a protected class that I'm aware of but doesn't want to investigate people actually violating a law that specifically protects judges.


Hell, I could argue this in court and win. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

exactly. these cunts are there for one reason only, to intimidate the justices. they wouldn't even care or be there if not for the leak.


if this was Tucker Carlson's house it's a different issue. and people have protested at Carlson's house. now if Carlson just happened to be on jury duty he'd have the same protections the justices and judges have. and lawyers too and that includes both the prosecution and defense teams.


it's amusing some posters here think free speech and the right to protest have no limitations. they do have limits. free speech does not give someone the right to slander/libel someone with impunity. it certainly does not give someone the right to make threats of harm. it's called terroristic threats and it can be considered a felony.


Elon Muskrat has said that while he wants free speech on twittybird (if he takes control) he won't allow free speech that crosses the line and becomes terroristic threats of violence etc.


the same applies for protests. in most cases an organized and announced rally/protest requires a permit. in the case of spontaneous demonstrations the moment it becomes a riot it's unlawful and police can forcefully disperse the protesters.

i wouldn't be you twit the point is it is attempting to influence these justices which is prohibited by law for their role in the legal system. same applies to jurors. it's one of the reasons in some high profile cases the jurors are sequestered in hotels to keep people from harassing them. or bribing them to influence a verdict.


recall that happened in the rittenhouse case where msnbc tried to follow the jury to their hotel and got caught for it. the judge banned msnbc from being in the court during the trial. the reporter and news crew were lucky that's all that happened to them.


so much for free speech and the "rights" of the press. did ya think that was right? probably not because you're one of the goobers in this forum who is convinced rittenhouse is a "murderer" aren't ya?




Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I think even Rittenhouse is sorry for his actions. That was an unfortunate situtation.

So you think it ok for Justices to be able to dine with influential members of special intrest groups but not ok for peaceful protesters outside their residence?

If SC Justices do not have a legal obligation to recuse themselves from undue influence ( and they do not) I sure as fuck think peaceful protests outside their homes is fine.

This is akin to Judges ruling that open carry is Constitutional but turning around and not allowing guns in the Courth6....its hypocrisy.

Now if the protesters break into the Court Chambers during deliberations O say they should be shot on sight. Just like that silly ass girl was on January 6th....the corridor should have been littered with dead protestors.

Any other erroneous assumptions?

Many of these women are seriously pissed off. I expect them to get arrested, post bail and then go right back and protest some more. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

... Hmmm... And I reckon that's fine, mate.
And they may be arrested again... Circle of life.

### Salty

I'm open to anybody putting on their defense atty. hat and give us an argument that says they aren't intending to intimidate, aren't intending to reverse what they think these judges are "thinking about doing".

I can't think of a single "convincing" thing a defense attorney could say to convince me these people aren't there to intimidate since the judges are still considering their decision. If the case was already decided, the protesters could then say they are protesting a decision already made so no intimidation to change their mind is in play.


To suggest this is merely an "information" protest is silly beyond belief. Are they informing the public that this decision will not end abortion? If not and they are saying that this decision will end abortion, that is disinformation and we all know that must be stopped at all cost, right?


And how silly to suggest that these protesters are merely attempting to "inform" the justices with information they may not be aware of.


Abortion providers are not judges. Judges are a legally protected class all their own. But of course this DOJ wants to investigate parents trying to intimidate school boards, not a protected class that I'm aware of but doesn't want to investigate people actually violating a law that specifically protects judges.


Hell, I could argue this in court and win. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This thread is surely becoming a joke, Hedo.

Why should we bother trying to persuade people to
watch "2000 Mules" - when they can't even take a look
at what the LAW actually sayes about the Judges. :

How Sad. ..

#### Salty

I think even Rittenhouse is sorry for his actions. That was an unfortunate situtation.



do you think it was ok for Biden and press to immediately call rittenhouse a racist white supremacist and the media falsely claimed the victims were black? then never correcting their reporting nor apologizing


So you think it ok for Justices to be able to dine with influential members of special intrest groups but not ok for peaceful protesters outside their residence?

if people were protesting outside your house you'd be screaming for the cops to "sweep the street".

If SC Justices do not have a legal obligation to recuse themselves from undue influence ( and they do not) I sure as fuck think peaceful protests outside their homes is fine


you ignore the fact that as justices they are not average citizens. there is law against these protests. it affects the ability of the legal system to function without undue influence.


This is akin to Judges ruling that open carry is Constitutional but turning around and not allowing guns in the Courth6....its hypocrisy.

Now if the protesters break into the Court Chambers during deliberations O say they should be shot on sight. Just like that silly ass girl was on January 6th....the corridor should have been littered with dead protestors.

Any other erroneous assumptions? Originally Posted by WTF

where do you come up with these stupid as fuck assumptions? your mind is a bag full of angry wet cats.