Armed man arrested by Kavanaugh Home, Had threatened Kavanaugh recently over SCOTUS Memo leak on Roe v Wade

[Binman4OSU]

Said he wanted to kill Kavanaugh after the Leak of the potential to overturn Roe V Wade and that he was upset with recent mass shootings



The man was arrested at around 1:50 a.m. Wednesday morning, according to McCabe.

The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported the man told authorities he wanted to kill Kavanaugh over the leaked opinion.

The Post, citing sources with knowledge of the investigation, described the man as a California resident in his mid-20s who was armed with at least one weapon and burglary tools.

He was reportedly arrested on a street near Kavanaugh's Montgomery County, Maryland, home after authorities received a tip about a threat against the conservative justice.

The man also reportedly told police he was angry about recent mass shootings across the country.
The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=4b62593473ae

 

[PokeJ]

Real life Pelican Brief. Don’t tell me extremist on the left and the right haven’t thought of this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Binman4OSU]

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1534616035491454978

 

[Binman4OSU]

https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/1534578665375277058

 

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/1534578665375277058

Jesus that is a stupid tweet and helps nothing

 

[cableok]

Jesus that is a stupid tweet and helps nothing

I am all for comedians being edgy, but this is just stupid. But it is Parton Oswald and that is about par for the course for him.

 

[Duke Silver]

I am all for comedians being edgy, but this is just stupid. But it is Parton Oswald and that is about par for the course for him.

Yeah. Comedians I give a pass always. Except him. He’s a fucking moron. And I love the goldbergs and I really feel bad that his wife died. He is so freaking dumb it outweighs that.

 

[cableok]

She isn’t wrong.
https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1534696594041360384?s=21&t=MPry7Obav74pLCYYCKwK2Q

 

[OSUgradndad85]

It would be nice if Garland would just enforce the law and arrest ‘em all, including Schumer.

 

[steross]

Jesus that is a stupid tweet and helps nothing

Yea, the majority leader demanding protection of the supreme court before sundown while blocking protection of regular Americans for decades is absolutely helping nothing.

 

[Duke Silver]

Yea, the majority leader demanding protection of the supreme court before sundown while blocking protection of regular Americans for decades is absolutely helping nothing.

That is also the case but it wasn’t the one that got attention

 

[Rack]

Protesting in front of justices homes isn’t something we should tolerate. Go to their place of business, but following justices home is beyond creepy. Should never have been tolerated.

 

[OSUgradndad85]

Yea, the majority leader demanding protection of the supreme court before sundown while blocking protection of regular Americans for decades is absolutely helping nothing.

You're correct, Schumer is doing nothing to help regular Americans, and at the same time he verbally threatens Supreme Court justices to incite violence.

 

[Binman4OSU]

Protesting in front of justices homes isn’t something we should tolerate. Go to their place a business, but following justices home is beyond creepy. Should never have been tolerated.

However, the Right to peacefully assemble is a protected Constitutional right.

As long as people are doing it in Public and Peacefully. That is protected by the Constitution of the United States

 

[OSUgradndad85]

However, the Right to peacefully assemble is a protected Constitutional right.

As long as people are doing it in Public and Peacefully. That is protected by the Constitution of the United States

Not in front of a Supreme Court justice's home it isn't, it's against the law. As is threatening one or more of those same justices (see also Chuck Schumer).

 

[LS1 Z28]

However, the Right to peacefully assemble is a protected Constitutional right.

As long as people are doing it in Public and Peacefully. That is protected by the Constitution of the United States

Not in front of a Supreme Court justice's home it isn't, it's against the law. As is threatening one or more of those same justices (see also Chuck Schumer).

It seems pretty clear to me that these protests violate federal law. Individuals can protest Roe v Wade all they want, but it shouldn't be done a SC justice's home in hopes of influencing their decision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

[Binman4OSU]

It seems pretty clear to me that these protests violate federal law. Individuals can protest Roe v Wade all they want, but it shouldn't be done a SC justice's home in hopes of influencing their decision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/

We wanted to look into that.

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

Whether they are illegal is up to a court’s interpretation. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The federal law O’Reilly claims these protestors have violated is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

Individuals found in violation of this law could be fined, sentenced to up to one year in prison, or both.

'

"Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.

But claiming this section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation, Eidelman said.

"That reading would unconstitutionally limit people’s ability to protest in traditional public forums, including streets and sidewalks, and it would restrict our ability to communicate our messages of dissent, disgust, and disappointment to the public," she said.

In the past, the Supreme Court has addressed bans on residential protests. For example, in the 1988 Frisby v. Schultz case, the Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin law that banned targeted picketing outside of a person’s home.

In this case, the court’s concern was that a broader ban on mobile protests through residential neighborhoods would restrict too much protected speech and assembly, Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, told PolitiFact.

"It’s also possible, given that not only residential privacy but also concerns about the administration of justice are involved, that a court would allow a broader restriction on protests near justices’ (and judges’) homes," he said.

O’Reilly isn’t the only Republican decrying these protests. On May 11, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to the Justice Department calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce this picketing statute.

"It is beyond dispute that far-left activists have launched a concerted and coordinated effort to intimidate the Court into changing the draft Dobbs decision," Grassley wrote in the letter, referring to the case being considered by the Supreme Court that asks if Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional.

Republican Govs. Larry Hogan of Maryland and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia also sent a joint letter to the DOJ calling on Garland to "provide adequate resources" to keep the Supreme Court justices safe.

While the DOJ has not yet commented directly on the protests, spokesperson Anthony Coley said on May 11 that Garland "continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court justices."

The attorney general has also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to assist the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police in ensuring the justices’ safety.

 

[cableok]

However, the Right to peacefully assemble is a protected Constitutional right.

As long as people are doing it in Public and Peacefully. That is protected by the Constitution of the United States

I can also walk right behind someone in a park and follow them constantly as they stroll --- but that doesn't make it right and not creepy.

People defending those that are protesting outside of a person's home make me SMH. Same as the Westboro idiots that protest a veterans funeral --- yes they have a right to protest --- but that is not the "right" thing to do.

 

[Binman4OSU]

Opponents of the protests have cited 18 U.S. Code §1507 to argue that protesting outside of Justices’ homes is prohibited. However, these arguments oversimplify the statute; furthermore, the statute itself may be unconstitutional. There are three reasons 18 U.S. Code §1507 likely does not provide a blanket prohibition on demonstrations outside of the Justices’ homes:

1. First, the provision requires a showing that the protestors have the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice . . . [or]influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.” It is impossible to impute intent on every protestor based on assumptions about the nature of the protest. Without an individualized inquiry, there is no way to know whether the individuals present at a protest have the requisite intent to influence the Justices or whether they are simply expressing frustration and indignation over what they see to be a foregone conclusion. The latter would not be prohibited by the statute.

1. Second, the statute specifically only prohibits “picketing” and “parading.” These terms of art do not necessarily cover all forms of protest. A “vigil” on a public sidewalk or street, for example, is neither a “picket” nor a parade. Labor law, for example, distinguishes between “pickets” and “protests.” When protests outside of public officials’ homes became popular in Montgomery County in the 1980s, the Montgomery County Council banned picketing in residential neighborhoods; however, that ban did not prevent marching.

1. Finally, 18 U.S. Code §1507 may well be unconstitutional. In United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983), the Supreme Court found that a statute that prohibited protests on sidewalks outside of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. In that case, the government argued in favor of the law, specifically on the basis that picketing or marching “on the sidewalks at the edge of the Court grounds” could appear to appeal to or influence the justices and violate the independence of the judiciary. The conduct in question, therefore, was precisely what 18 U.S. 1507 prohibits on its face: protesting outside of a Court with the intent to influence a judicial position. The Court found that the “public sidewalks on the perimeter of the grounds” were in no way “different from other public sidewalks in the city.” Similarly, here, the protestors are situated on sidewalks and public streets. They are not located on the private property of the Justices’ homes. Under Grace, these actions are constitutionally protected.

It bears noting that anti-mask mandate protestors have also protested outside of judges’ homes. Some anti-mask mandate protestors even protested armed against mask mandates in Kentucky. However, there were no equivalent calls to criminalize these protestors under 18 U.S. § 1507.

Stigmatizing protest restricts civic space and puts protestors at risk

Recent statements from all three branches of our government have stigmatized protesters demonstrating outside of the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Government officials and the media have spread disinformation that the protests were violent, threatening, or dangerous, despite the absence of any evidence of such.

Around the world, we see how the stigmatization of protestors is used as a tool to restrict civic space and quash dissent. When public officials paint non-violent protesters as a threat, they open the door to justifying violence against them. This debate over tactics merely distracts us from the actual violence: the unnecessary death, trauma, and physical injury that will result from returning to a regime of forced birth.

Freedom of expression and freedom of choice are the cornerstones of human rights and our democracy. They should not be violated simply because they make those in power uncomfortable.

 

[OSUgradndad85]

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/

We wanted to look into that.

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

Whether they are illegal is up to a court’s interpretation. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The federal law O’Reilly claims these protestors have violated is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

Individuals found in violation of this law could be fined, sentenced to up to one year in prison, or both.

'

"Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.

But claiming this section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation, Eidelman said.

"That reading would unconstitutionally limit people’s ability to protest in traditional public forums, including streets and sidewalks, and it would restrict our ability to communicate our messages of dissent, disgust, and disappointment to the public," she said.

In the past, the Supreme Court has addressed bans on residential protests. For example, in the 1988 Frisby v. Schultz case, the Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin law that banned targeted picketing outside of a person’s home.

In this case, the court’s concern was that a broader ban on mobile protests through residential neighborhoods would restrict too much protected speech and assembly, Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, told PolitiFact.

"It’s also possible, given that not only residential privacy but also concerns about the administration of justice are involved, that a court would allow a broader restriction on protests near justices’ (and judges’) homes," he said.

O’Reilly isn’t the only Republican decrying these protests. On May 11, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to the Justice Department calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce this picketing statute.

"It is beyond dispute that far-left activists have launched a concerted and coordinated effort to intimidate the Court into changing the draft Dobbs decision," Grassley wrote in the letter, referring to the case being considered by the Supreme Court that asks if Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional.

Republican Govs. Larry Hogan of Maryland and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia alsosent a joint letter to the DOJ calling on Garland to "provide adequate resources" to keep the Supreme Court justices safe.

While the DOJ has not yet commented directly on the protests, spokesperson Anthony Coley said on May 11 that Garland "continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court justices."

The attorney general has also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to assist the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police in ensuring the justices’ safety.

Is this your way of saying "I was wrong" or "Yea, but...."