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
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#61
That one was bullshit as well...I don't like what this couple did, but I totally understand it. It's a violation of privacy to do what these protestors did here as well. PLUS the ACLU doesn't decide policy...they only start lawsuits and take "mostly" wrong stances. Once again, these incidents where indecent people think it's their "right" to invade the privacy of others are making this country worse, not better. They are making many sane peaceful and non-political people either insane (like this couple was) or ready to leave for friendly confines. They are scary and triggered, nothing more or less than that. Doesn't matter what's being protested when common decency is lost.
so this was a legal precedence that doesn't match what you are saying....so it is BS?

It ISN"T BS it is the law, unfortunately.

Please don't think I support this crap that is happening, I'm just pointing out there is a Legal precedence and protection for those people to do exactly what they are doing.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,010
17,405
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#62
Not all people are trying to influence the judge many many many are protesting his testimony to Congress on his confirmation where he claimed he would NOT vote to overturne Roe v Wade and they are calling him a liar and protesting his confirmation answers

And they want him impeached due to what they see as false testimony under oath
I'm confused. When did he vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

Also how can vote the way we say or we'll impeach you be seen as anything other than coercion?
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#63
if you have a legitimate reason to protest me then YES it is legal. I wouldn't be OK with it, but it would be legal as long as you did it from Public lands because once you come onto my private land the Law says I can set the Speech conditions that I will allow or not allow on my own private land and then you would be violating my rights if you did it on my property.

I may not like it, I may hate it, but it is legal.
Well if it is that needs to be changed. I bet in Tulsa and OKC it's not allowed and is against the law...it's not lawful everywhere and many if not most have ordinances against such behavior. Plus don't try that at my home with 50 friends...I, nor my neighbors will allow it to occur even if it takes the police and the mayor. It will not occur. It is NOT a protected right to protest in front of someone's home even if in neighbors streets. It's a violation of the right to privacy and quite enjoyment. Legally it's in conflict where bodies like the ACLU have made these statements and those conflicts need to be resolved and corrected.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#64

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#65
I'm confused. When did he vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

Also how can vote the way we say or we'll impeach you be seen as anything other than coercion?


From a leak. This is why Leaks are Dangerous

Politico was given the following

The second leak was to Politico. Likely within the past few days, a person familiar with the court’s deliberations told them that five members of the court – Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – originally voted to overturn Roe and that remains the current vote. In addition, the position of the chief justice is unclear. The remaining justices are dissenting.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,332
4,191
1,743
#66
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/477/frisby-v-schultz

Doing a little bit of research on this issue led me to Frisby v Schultz. It's an interesting case.

There was an anti-abortion group protesting outside the home of a doctor back in the 80's. The town's board enacted an ordinance prohibiting picketing “before or about any residence or dwelling” to stop it. This was challenged in court and eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. They ruled 6-3 that the ordinance was constitutional.

Obviously these are different circumstances, but this leads me to believe that the 1A doesn't guarantee the right to protest in front of an individual's home.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#67
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/477/frisby-v-schultz

Doing a little bit of research on this issue led me to Frisby v Schultz. It's an interesting case.

There was an anti-abortion group protesting outside the home of a doctor back in the 80's. The town's board enacted an ordinance prohibiting picketing “before or about any residence or dwelling” to stop it. This was challenged in court and eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. They ruled 6-3 that the ordinance was constitutional.

Obviously these are different circumstances, but this leads me to believe that the 1A doesn't guarantee the right to protest in front of an individual's home.
why I said you have to have a LEGITIMATE reason to protest. If you don't then it is harassment.

Now good luck trying to define the LEGITIMATE reason Cause that seems to be WIDE open for interpretation.

Hell there are even papers written claiming that Looting is a Legitimate form of protesting LOL
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,332
4,191
1,743
#68
why I said you have to have a LEGITIMATE reason to protest. If you don't then it is harassment.
I haven't read the actual opinion on this case, but it appears that their ruling wasn't based off how legitimate the reason was for the protest.

From the article linked above:
O’Connor also interpreted the ordinance as permitting picketers to march through residential areas and assemble in public streets so long as they did not congregate around one particular house. She argued that governments had the authority to protect unwilling listeners from unwanted speech when in the privacy of their homes and thus ensure residential tranquility.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#69
I haven't read the actual opinion on this case, but it appears that their ruling wasn't based off how legitimate the reason was for the protest.

From the article linked above:
O’Connor also interpreted the ordinance as permitting picketers to march through residential areas and assemble in public streets so long as they did not congregate around one particular house. She argued that governments had the authority to protect unwilling listeners from unwanted speech when in the privacy of their homes and thus ensure residential tranquility.
Great read from your article.

Also of note that Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall and Stevens dissented against the ordinance and said it restricted too much protected expression.

So we now have instances of SCOTUS both in favor of and against the exact topic of discussion here LOL. Hope people can understand this isn't some cut and dry topic here. It is very vague and filled with Gray area and interpretations etc

Court did not think ordinance was overly broad
In a subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor interpreted the phrase “before or about any residence or dwelling” as applying to a single residence or dwelling. O’Connor did not accept the lower courts’ reading of the ordinance as overly broad. In fact, she held that the ordinance did not prohibit picketers from alternative free speech activities such as distributing pamphlets in the community, mailing information to residents of the neighborhood, and going door-to-door to talk with residents about the issue.

O’Connor also interpreted the ordinance as permitting picketers to march through residential areas and assemble in public streets so long as they did not congregate around one particular house. She argued that governments had the authority to protect unwilling listeners from unwanted speech when in the privacy of their homes and thus ensure residential tranquility.

In this case, Justice O’Connor argued, the picketers were not simply trying to express their views to the public; rather, they were trying to intrude on the doctor’s privacy and pressure him to stop performing abortions. In summary, the majority ruled that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to target picketing that intruded upon individual residential privacy and therefore was constitutional.

Dissent said ordinance restricted protected expression
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, dissented, believing that the ordinance restricted too much expression and that the majority “condone[d] a law that suppresses substantially more speech than is necessary.”

Justice John Paul Stevens also wrote a dissent, reasoning that the law was overbroad and would suppress even friendly messages such as “GET WELL, CHARLIE — OUR TEAM NEEDS YOU!”
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#70
I think the intent is pretty simple to establish based on the timing of the protest. If the decision in question hasn't been officially ruled on, then the intent is obviously to influence. If the protests occur after a decision has been rendered, then I think you may have a point.
Intent is never simple when you have to prove actual intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Lot of untrained in the law “lawyers” in this thread.

Lots of hurdles to leap in that statute for a successful conviction.
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,443
1,210
1,743
#71
Intent is never simple when you have to prove actual intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Lot of untrained in the law “lawyers” in this thread.

Lots of hurdles to leap in that statute for a successful conviction.
Come on man, don't be that guy. It's like Gumby telling everyone we can't talk about football because we're not football coaches.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#72
Come on man, don't be that guy. It's like Gumby telling everyone we can't talk about football because we're not football coaches.
I'll be whatever guy I want to be....thanks.

You made a completely factually incorrect statement ("....the intent is pretty simple to establish based on the timing of the protest. If the decision in question hasn't been officially ruled on, then the intent is obviously to influence."). I pointed that out as a person who actually has to prove specific intent in criminal prosecutions on a day by day basis.

I didn't tell anybody that they couldn't be a google lawyer here. You and whomever else that wants to are perfectly free to post your eye-rollingly wrong legal statements and conclusions about this particular statute you want. I'm free to comment about those legal statements and conclusions as well.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,332
4,191
1,743
#75
Intent is never simple when you have to prove actual intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Lot of untrained in the law “lawyers” in this thread.

Lots of hurdles to leap in that statute for a successful conviction.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Do you believe they would be legally justified to restrict protests at the homes of SC justices over this issue?
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,443
1,210
1,743
#77
I'll be whatever guy I want to be....thanks.

You made a completely factually incorrect statement ("....the intent is pretty simple to establish based on the timing of the protest. If the decision in question hasn't been officially ruled on, then the intent is obviously to influence."). I pointed that out as a person who actually has to prove specific intent in criminal prosecutions on a day by day basis.

I didn't tell anybody that they couldn't be a google lawyer here. You and whomever else that wants to are perfectly free to post your eye-rollingly wrong legal statements and conclusions about this particular statute you want. I'm free to comment about those legal statements and conclusions as well.
You be you.