Re: Abortion
Posted: Wed May 11, 2022 8:20 pm
I wasn't asking on the legality. Do you think it is wrong to protest outside of any of those places?
that isn't how it works in the court. They take a vote around the table, decide who "wins" and then assigns a person from the winning side to write the opinion, and someone from the losing side to write the dissent. The fact there is a draft opinion floating around means they already voted. They just don't talk about it publicly until it gets published/released. The fact that Alito wrote this means that Roberts is not part of the majority, or he would have assigned it to himself as the chief.
I know how it works, but this still isn't finished. It was a rough draft done on February 10th. Things can change, and the vote can change all the way up until the final ruling comes out.Indy wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 11:18 amthat isn't how it works in the court. They take a vote around the table, decide who "wins" and then assigns a person from the winning side to write the opinion, and someone from the losing side to write the dissent. The fact there is a draft opinion floating around means they already voted. They just don't talk about it publicly until it gets published/released. The fact that Alito wrote this means that Roberts is not part of the majority, or he would have assigned it to himself as the chief.
I just looked into it and found some articles. Below is the best one I found. It sounds like it's actually illegal, though a) it may be a bad law that makes it illegal / would be thrown out if challenged, since it arguably violates citizens' constitutional rights; and b) it might not actually be enforced by the DOJ. Nevertheless, it does look like on the letter of the law, it is illegal for them to be there protesting this specific case ruling.
A 1950 federal statute prohibiting certain protests outside of a judge's residence has been cited by Republicans calling for Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law against abortion rights protesters who have gathered in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.
The law, enacted by Congress in 1950, makes it illegal to picket or parade with "the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge" ... "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."
...
Because the draft has been leaked but the ruling hasn't been handed down, "it seems to me that (it) will be pretty easy to prove that it was with the intent to influence," Volokh said.
Wouldn't this law cover the regular protests at the Supreme Court, including an annual anti-abortion march?
The litigants in that case were participating in demonstrations not linked specifically to any ruling the court was considering. There is certainly an argument that the annual March for Life is aimed at influencing the court's approach to abortion cases -- and particularly in years like this one, where the demonstration happened while justices had before them a case asking them to overturn the court's abortion rights precedents.
"Picketing outside of a person's home, I think, is generally viewed as a bigger deal than outside of a very hard target, such as the Supreme Court," Volokh said.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on the GOP calls for it to enforce the federal picketing law.
It's possible that the department might not enforce the law with a standalone charge, but could tack on a violation of the law to a case bringing other charges against a protester who, for instance, engages in violence.
I also don't think it's a great practice of civility on that. The nice thing for Biden and Pelosi is that they would just go to one of their many other homes and tell the protestors to pound sand, haha.Mori Chu wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 12:42 pmI just looked into it and found some articles. Below is the best one I found. It sounds like it's actually illegal, though a) it may be a bad law that makes it illegal / would be thrown out if challenged, since it arguably violates citizens' constitutional rights; and b) it might not actually be enforced by the DOJ. Nevertheless, it does look like on the letter of the law, it is illegal for them to be there protesting this specific case ruling.
I maintain that it's not a good approach, and I don't want angry groups of people going to lawmakers' private homes if they don't like the individual decisions that lawmaker makes. Dems who want to protect abortion rights wouldn't like it if Biden or Pelosi or Sotomayor or whomever were being surrounded in their homes by GOP protestors.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics ... index.html
A 1950 federal statute prohibiting certain protests outside of a judge's residence has been cited by Republicans calling for Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law against abortion rights protesters who have gathered in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.
The law, enacted by Congress in 1950, makes it illegal to picket or parade with "the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge" ... "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."
...
Because the draft has been leaked but the ruling hasn't been handed down, "it seems to me that (it) will be pretty easy to prove that it was with the intent to influence," Volokh said.
Wouldn't this law cover the regular protests at the Supreme Court, including an annual anti-abortion march?
The litigants in that case were participating in demonstrations not linked specifically to any ruling the court was considering. There is certainly an argument that the annual March for Life is aimed at influencing the court's approach to abortion cases -- and particularly in years like this one, where the demonstration happened while justices had before them a case asking them to overturn the court's abortion rights precedents.
"Picketing outside of a person's home, I think, is generally viewed as a bigger deal than outside of a very hard target, such as the Supreme Court," Volokh said.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on the GOP calls for it to enforce the federal picketing law.
It's possible that the department might not enforce the law with a standalone charge, but could tack on a violation of the law to a case bringing other charges against a protester who, for instance, engages in violence.
This happens all the time. People are protesting at the White House every day. I think Schumer said he has a protest outside his house 3-4 times a week.Mori Chu wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 12:42 pmI just looked into it and found some articles. Below is the best one I found. It sounds like it's actually illegal, though a) it may be a bad law that makes it illegal / would be thrown out if challenged, since it arguably violates citizens' constitutional rights; and b) it might not actually be enforced by the DOJ. Nevertheless, it does look like on the letter of the law, it is illegal for them to be there protesting this specific case ruling.
I maintain that it's not a good approach, and I don't want angry groups of people going to lawmakers' private homes if they don't like the individual decisions that lawmaker makes. Dems who want to protect abortion rights wouldn't like it if Biden or Pelosi or Sotomayor or whomever were being surrounded in their homes by GOP protestors.