Protesters chant outside Supreme Court justices' homes
McConnell and Grassley say 'intimidation' is illegal.

But I thought it's okay to have a 'peaceful protest'.
Maybe if they continue the peaceful protest by breaking through police lines and occupying and vandalizing the Supreme Court Building that will be okay with the Top Republicans....you know like Jan 6

Did it look like this "peaceful protest"?



or this?



or this?



or this?



Yeah, didn't think so...

Snowflakes, clutching their pearls.

'looked peaceful to me. That gallows was just a metaphor'

They were also at Kavanaugh's house where the police told them they couldn't stay in front of one house but had to keep moving. Turned out several of the marchers were his immediate neighbors.

The people chanting better be careful. They are protesting the side that literally killed a doctor in a church so that there would be babies to adopt.

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

I don't think a protest has managed to change any minds of those in power since maybe MLK's days. It's too easy for despots to vilify them. The one closest to actually changing an outcome was Jan 6, because they physically breached a seat of power and had sympathizers in power on the inside. Burning Kavanaugh's trash cans won't do squat.

Journalists covering demonstrations in from of Alito’s house are being given wine and cheese by neighbors (and key lime pie, in another post) and funny how the neighbors respect the legal right to peaceful protest more than the legal people do.

Protesters should have the right to protest at Supreme Court justices residences within reasonable limits, but I think that in general such protests are going to be mostly counterproductive.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2022 03:59PM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted King
Protesters should have the right to protest at Supreme Court justices residences within reasonable limitss, but I think that in general such protests are going to be mostly counterproductive.

Agreed, but the question is, what WOULD be productive.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Ted King
Protesters should have the right to protest at Supreme Court justices residences within reasonable limitss, but I think that in general such protests are going to be mostly counterproductive.

Agreed, but the question is, what WOULD be productive.

There's no much that can be productive in the short run, unfortunately, in terms of changing the Court's rulings on reproductive rights, but we can try hard to get every Republican politician to be on the record for exactly just how far they would go to limit a woman's ability to choose what she does with her body. IOW, do our best to make them pay as much of a political price as possible for approving extreme views on abortion and women's reproductive choices.

---

e pluribus unum

The reality seems to be that many voters have tuned out any argument so, regardless of merit, facts just wont register with a very significant portion of the electorate.

It would also seem that unless Dems find a real way go politically nuclear (tit for tat) and sell something (what?) to the public they will constantly be fighting from behind. GQP starts from a rock solid 30-40% of the electorate that's been sold a packaged bill of goods, Dems have no similar package to offset that. Combating hate is always more difficult than generating hate. Both side know this.

Hate or negativity sells so Republicans will continue to peddle hate and fear until it no longer sells - not something that's about to happen. In a democracy people get the government they deserve, how they correct the errors democracy offers is problematic. Once they allow autocracy, which they're on the verge of doing, they'll have a damn hard time reversing that.

Quote
RgrF
The reality seems to be that many voters have tuned out any argument so, regardless of merit, facts just wont register with a very significant portion of the electorate.

It would also seem that unless Dems find a real way go politically nuclear (tit for tat) and sell something (what?) to the public they will constantly be fighting from behind. GQP starts from a rock solid 30-40% of the electorate that's been sold a packaged bill of goods, Dems have no similar package to offset that. Combating hate is always more difficult than generating hate. Both side know this.

Hate or negativity sells so Republicans will continue to peddle hate and fear until it no longer sells - not something that's about to happen. In a democracy people get the government they deserve, how they correct the errors democracy offers is problematic. Once they allow autocracy, which they're on the verge of doing, they'll have a damn hard time reversing that.

I see your points, but I do think that Dems won in 2020 in part because we rejected hate. Biden advertised (and sold) a message of peace and harmony, in a time of extreme discord-- largely as a result of Orange Dump-- and though many people voted for him, this was the message that won out. Admittedly a tough message to sell, but Biden successfully sold it, and it could happen again ... particularly because, if this court decision goes through, we will again find ourselves in the midst of extreme discord, likely involving protests, maybe even riots, and deep, deep divisions that will manifest at the ballot box come November. Some Dems are already capitalizing on this message... Klobuchar and Harris amongst them. Republicans aren't unaware of this either; they know full well that there could be a significant backfire/hostility factor at play here.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2022 07:55PM by PeterB.

There is a law against this type of protest against the judiciary.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

But while protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.

At issue is a statute enacted in 1950: Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code. The law states that it is illegal, “with the intent of influencing any judge,” to:

picket or parade “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer”
“or with such intent,” to resort “to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence”
Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University’s law school, said that the current protests at justices’ homes qualify under the statute and that the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional.

“The statute would seem to apply both because … they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations,” Abu El-Haj said, “but also because the statute has a catchall ‘resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.’ ”

Timothy Zick of the College of William & Mary agreed.

“The conduct appears to be within the statute’s prohibition,” Zick said. “Picketing includes activities such as demonstrating and protesting. The court has upheld properly tailored restrictions on pickets that target a particular home.”

While the Supreme Court has rarely dealt with this specific statute, it has upheld similar ones.

In 1988’s Frisby v. Schultz, the court upheld a local Wisconsin law that banned protesting targeted at a specific home, as long as protesters were allowed to march through a neighborhood.

Two decades earlier, in 1965, the court upheld a Louisiana law that echoed the federal law’s prohibition on picketing at a court. The laws were enacted amid an outcry over allies of Communist Party defendants picketing federal courthouses.

“A State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence,” the court ruled in Cox v. Louisiana. “A narrowly drawn statute such as the one under review is obviously a safeguard both necessary and appropriate to vindicate the State’s interest in assuring justice under law.”

That case didn’t deal specifically with banning protests outside the home of a judge or another party to a legal proceeding — but it did uphold a law that would seem to involve less potentially problematic efforts to influence them. And the court has repeatedly suggested protests of legal proceedings should be considered differently, since protests could possibly impact nonpolitical proceedings or even inject merely the appearance of political influence or intimidation into decisions that should be based solely on the law, not public opinion.

“There is no room at any stage of judicial proceedings for such intervention; mob law is the very antithesis of due process,” the justices wrote in Cox.

They added at another point that “entirely different considerations would apply if, for example, the demonstrators were picketing to protest the actions of a mayor or other official of a city completely unrelated to any judicial proceedings.”

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

There is a law against this type of protest against the judiciary.

The law that led to their decision was a result of anti-abortion activists targeting the homes of women's health care doctors - irony abounds.

Also ironic is the majority of justices are acting so political it's as if they are unelected politicians.

---

From the WaPo article:

Quote

“entirely different considerations would apply if, for example, the demonstrators were picketing to protest the actions of a mayor or other official of a city completely unrelated to any judicial proceedings.”

In other words, freedom of speech yay! but not if it affects us.

That would never be upheld in court…oh, wait.