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

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.

I'm sure that under the right circumstance a citizen can make an arrest and if they resist...

The linked article makes the case that it is quite clear.
Of course it makes a difference if the protest is in a liberal jurisdiction or a stand your ground state like Missouri.
Same with the ' peaceful protests' at Catholic churches.

... Too right, mate! ... Not-onley "stand yer ground" - but you
also have the right to "defend yourself" if assaulted.

### Salty

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.

Is this another BooHoo thread about how difficult it is for our poor Trump lovers have it?

I'll say this....if there is a law against peaceful protest anywhere, it should be struck down!

Now remember ladies, There is no crying in baseball!

If they can't take the fuckin' heat, resign.

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

What if they're there for their own watch party? Making sure no bolt of lightning, nor nothing shall strike the head.

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/s...ase-likely-not

by KRISTINE FRAZAO | The National DeskTuesday, May 10th 2022

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


[Supersedes]

Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 9. Crimes Against Peace and Order
Article 4. Picketing of Dwelling Places

§ 18.2-418. Declaration of policy

It is hereby declared that the protection and preservation of the home is the keystone of
democratic government; that the public health and welfare and the good order of the community
require that members of the community enjoy in their homes a feeling of well-being, tranquility,
and privacy, and when absent from their homes carry with them the sense of security inherent in
the assurance that they may return to the enjoyment of their homes; that the practice of
picketing before or about residences and dwelling places causes emotional disturbance and
distress to the occupants; that such practice has as its object the harassing of such occupants;
and without resort to such practice, full opportunity exists, and under the terms and provisions
of this article will continue to exist, for the exercise of freedom of speech and other
constitutional rights; and that the provisions hereinafter enacted are necessary in the public
interest, to avoid the detrimental results herein set forth.

If they can't take the fuckin' heat, resign. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

spoken by a self-proclaimed "too lazy to protest" radical leftist.

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/s...ase-likely-not

by KRISTINE FRAZAO | The National DeskTuesday, May 10th 2022

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

New polling by the Trafalgar Group shows that three-fourths of likely general election voters think that doxing the Supreme Court justices and protesting at their homes is not acceptable. Among Democrats, only about 21% of them think protesting at the private homes of the Supreme Court justices is an appropriate way to express grievances, the polls indicated.

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/s...ase-likely-not

by KRISTINE FRAZAO | The National DeskTuesday, May 10th 2022

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


[Supersedes]

Code of Virginia
Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally
Chapter 9. Crimes Against Peace and Order
Article 4. Picketing of Dwelling Places

§ 18.2-418. Declaration of policy Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

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.

Clarence Thomas presumably would have celebrated protesters outside his Virginia home 55 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Had Liberals not protested then, he couldn't have married his current wife in Virginia.

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

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.

spoken by a self-proclaimed "too lazy to protest" radical leftist.





New polling by the Trafalgar Group shows that three-fourths of likely general election voters think that doxing the Supreme Court justices and protesting at their homes is not acceptable. Among Democrats, only about 21% of them think protesting at the private homes of the Supreme Court justices is an appropriate way to express grievances, the polls indicated. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Thank you for that.

Two minute ten second mark. I'll delete it at the top of the hour.



And I'm not so old.

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 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.