Abortion

[Mori Chu]

[Nodack]

I’m sure they know. They just aren’t going tell their viewers.

[Superbone]

I’m sure they know. They just aren’t going tell their viewers.

Just like any good news shows, you keep your audience in the dark.

[In2ition]

I guess I'm confused that you all think protests in front of the Supreme Justice's homes is cool? That's the vibe I'm getting here.

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.

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.

[Nodack]

I went on record saying it wasn’t cool a few posts ago. Then I saw where the Supreme Court decided it was ok to protest in front of employees of abortion clinics several years back. Then I changed my mind and decided the Supreme Court basically already ruled that it is ok so, it must be ok. Then I changed my mind again and decided it just isn’t cool to do that no matter what the Supreme Court says.

[Indy]

If you disagree with POTUS can you protest outside his house? What about your governor? Or your mayor?

[Mori Chu]

My take on protesting at people's houses is, yeah it does seem to be -legal-, but I still would not participate in such a thing myself and would prefer for protestors to do their protests in a different way. What is legal is not always what is right. I think that people should have a right to privacy and should be able to feel safe and secure in their own homes. The protestors at Kavanaugh's house did not seem to be violent or enraged, but still, I wouldn't want to know that a group of hundreds of people were waiting right outside my house to protest me. I know others disagree and that's okay.

[In2ition]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

[Indy]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

I wasn't asking on the legality. Do you think it is wrong to protest outside of any of those places?

[In2ition]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

I wasn't asking on the legality. Do you think it is wrong to protest outside of any of those places?

If your goal is to intimidate and threaten to overturn a potential ruling, it certainly seems wrong to me.

[Indy]

What if the goal is to protest the decision that has already been made?

[In2ition]

It's still being argued, so it's not done. Things could change.

[Indy]

It's still being argued, so it's not done. Things could change.

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.

[In2ition]

It's still being argued, so it's not done. Things could change.

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.

[Mori Chu]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

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.

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.

[In2ition]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

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.

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.

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.

[Indy]

I think it's legal to protest in front of the WH, the Governor's mansion and your mayor's home, but it's a Federal felony to do it in front of a judges home.

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.

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.

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.

[Indy]

"Pro-life"

[Superbone]

What is WRONG with those people?!

[Nodack]

That group of people would vote no on anything the Dems had anything to do with no matter what the cause. They aren’t in Washington to help Americans, they are in Washington to fight Dems.