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

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#21
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.
Ohh I don't disagree and I think it is in very poor taste and should stop, but that doesn't mean it is illegal just because they are there.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,372
4,206
1,743
#23
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 Councilbanned 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.
I don't think that anyone can argue that these protests aren't intended to influence their decision on Roe v Wade, and if the protesters believe this law is unconstitutional, they need to challenge it in court. It's pretty clear that someone could end up getting killed if we don't start enforcing it.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
#24
Keep reading. If they are there to voice their displeasure in the current state of affairs. 100% legal. If you can prove they are there to try to intimidate or change a judges outcome on future proceedings. Then it is Illegal.
Nice try, but all you referenced was some fact check site that carries no legal standing whatsoever. It's not law, nor does it abolish what's already on the books. The law is clear and it's been upheld, and I'll also direct your attention to one small section of what you posted: "There are three reasons 18 U.S. Code §1507 likely does not provide a blanket prohibition . See that word LIKELY?? It's a law that's purposely not being enforced, nor was Schumer's direct verbal threat to two of the justices.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#25
I don't think that anyone can argue that these protests aren't intended to influence their decision on Roe v Wade, and if the protesters believe this law is unconstitutional, they need to challenge it in court. It's pretty clear that someone could end up getting killed if we don't start enforcing this law.
there are two sides.

They HAVE the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and voice their displeasure with the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned based on the leaked memo

That is a right that is just as solidly protected as the right to own a firearm
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,083
17,429
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#26
there are two sides.

They HAVE the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and voice their displeasure with the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned based on the leaked memo

That is a right that is just as solidly protected as the right to own a firearm
And if a gun rights protest were happening outside a justices home with an upcoming vote on the 2nd amendment...AND a person was arrested at that home while making threats and armed, then that would rightfully be the end of such a protest. The same should apply here.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#27
And if a gun rights protest were happening outside a justices home with an upcoming vote on the 2nd amendment...AND a person was arrested while making threats and armed, then that would rightfully be the end of such a protest. The same should apply here.
so you are saying that if 1 person violates the law then all others must give up their right and stop exercising their rights ?
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,372
4,206
1,743
#28
there are two sides.

They HAVE the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and voice their displeasure with the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned based on the leaked memo

That is a right that is just as solidly protected as the right to own a firearm
IMO, the freedom of expression is as valuable as any other right that we possess. We should do everything we can to protect it, even as the rest of the world becomes more restrictive.

That being said, there's a certain level of threat/coercion associated with protesting outside of someone's home. I don't believe that we should allow protests outside of a judge's home in hopes of influencing their decisions, regardless of the issue.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#29
I don't believe that we should allow protests outside of a judge's home in hopes of influencing their decisions, regardless of the issue.
To be clear. protesting outside a judges home in an attempt to influence a future decision is Illegal.

Protesting outside a judges home to express displeasure with a past vote OR current events is LEGAL and protected by the constitution
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#30
I'm not sure why if Congress and POTUS get security measures for their immediate families when needed why this wasn't

1. Already a Law
2. Already passed. Dems dragging feet in House over this is STUPID partisan crap
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,083
17,429
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#31
so you are saying that if 1 person violates the law then all others must give up their right and stop exercising their rights ?
I'm saying that we bend the law quite a bit when it comes to protests and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but when things start escalating it's time to enforce the law before things escalate further.

If a person is afraid to let their kids go out to play in their own yard, that protest has escalated to intimidation.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
#32
there are two sides.

They HAVE the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and voice their displeasure with the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned based on the leaked memo

That is a right that is just as solidly protected as the right to own a firearm
In this situation, no they do not, and there's an active law on the books that speaks to that and it was posted earlier. Your politifact.com does not negate existing United States Code.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#33
In this situation, no they do not, and there's an active law on the books that speaks to that and it was posted earlier. Your politifact.com does not negate existing United States Code.
Constitutional rights are protected.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

They have the right to protest. They do NOT have the right to intimidate. That is what both laws say
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
#34
Constitutional rights are protected.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

They have the right to protest. They do NOT have the right to intimidate. That is what both laws say
United States Code IS federal law, not state law .
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#35
United States Code IS federal law, not state law .
fair point. Here is the code as written. I do not see anything in here that says they can't voice and protest their displeasure which is a protected right as long as they do not interfere with, obstruct, or impede justice while doing so...even next to a residence.

You are trying to stretch this code into something it simply IS NOT

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
prev | next
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.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(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.)
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,524
1,233
1,743
#36
fair point. Here is the code as written. I do not see anything in here that says they can't voice and protest their displeasure which is a protected right as long as they do not interfere with, obstruct, or impede justice while doing so...even next to a residence.

You are trying to stretch this code into something it simply IS NOT

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
prev | next
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.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(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.)

The underlined part seems pretty broad and clear to me. I think they're breaking the law.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
#37
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
It should no longer be consider peaceful when someone is in front of your home protesting. They have a right to quite enjoyment of their property as well as the right to not feel threatened inside their homes. This has been pushed very far in the wrong direction on these protest in the last several years. It ends up being violent. Peaceful protesting in public is one thing, but doing so at or near private residences shouldn't be tolerated.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#38
The underlined part seems pretty broad and clear to me. I think they're breaking the law.
Don't get me wrong I think it is wrong and they should stop and Congress should expand protection to the SCOTUS family members

I just don't see how it can be illegal as it is protected under free speech and right to peacefully assemble so long as they don't do so to intimidate OR interfere with the court process
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,504
6,984
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#39
fair point. Here is the code as written. I do not see anything in here that says they can't voice and protest their displeasure which is a protected right as long as they do not interfere with, obstruct, or impede justice while doing so...even next to a residence.

You are trying to stretch this code into something it simply IS NOT

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
prev | next
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.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(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.)
In addition to teachum's point, there's also the bit after what you (or the source) bolded. Seems pretty clear in multiple parts of that paragraph that you can't do that.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,344
10,927
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#40
It should no longer be consider peaceful when someone is in front of your home protesting. They have a right to quite enjoyment of their property as well as the right to not feel threatened inside their homes. This has been pushed very far in the wrong direction on these protest in the last several years. It ends up being violent. Peaceful protesting in public is one thing, but doing so at or near private residences shouldn't be tolerated.
The city maintaines sidewalk in front of a house is Public property..that is one issue