Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 01:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah as I tried to make clear, I am not disputing said indisputable issue. Rallying in front of someone's private home is at the very least a shitty move aiming at intimidation and fear. Maybe it should be or is a crime. I just don't know (and am the wrong person to determine that) how that fares against the right to freely assemble and freedom of speech.

Yeah, I knew that and apologies if my post came off as accusatory in that regard.  As Bel and I have discussed in great detail, while we both find protesting outside a person's private residence abhorrent it is absolutely protected speech.  As long as it's on public property, that is.  My question becomes whether Barr is right that this falls under a law outlawing doing so to judges in a way already discussed.

Quote:I admittedly do not trust Barr in that or any other matter though. He is a right-wing ideologue that imho appears to believe that the left has an inherently wrong worldview and that the law should be interpreted under that lens.

Yes, hence my disclaimer about him in my post.  I'm sure he didn't make the law up out of thin air, it almost certainly exists.  The question then becomes whether the current protests fall under its auspices.

Quote:---
At last, I feel the urge to denounce comparing the justice department with Brown shirts (should have done so before), but that's just a sidenote really and for sure not aimed at you. I pack it in anyways since you expressed a similar stance regarding Nazi comparisons.

Yes, I missed that as well.  I loathe Nazi comparisons as a general rule.  They should only be used when the person, or group, in question is literally spouting Nazi ideology.  It's far too charged an allegation to be made otherwise.

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I knew that and apologies if my post came off as accusatory in that regard.  As Bel and I have discussed in great detail, while we both find protesting outside a person's private residence abhorrent it is absolutely protected speech.  As long as it's on public property, that is.  My question becomes whether Barr is right that this falls under a law outlawing doing so to judges in a way already discussed.



Yes, hence my disclaimer about him in my post.  I'm sure he didn't make the law up out of thin air, it almost certainly exists.  The question then becomes whether the current protests fall under its auspices.


Yes, I missed that as well.  I loathe Nazi comparisons as a general rule.  They should only be used when the person, or group, in question is literally spouting Nazi ideology.  It's far too charged an allegation to be made otherwise.

Re read what I wrote. I didn't say they held NAZI beliefs, I made a historical comparison to a group used by a political party with a group used by a political party. It could easily be any ideology or political party.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 01:47 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Re read what I wrote. I didn't say they held NAZI beliefs, I made a historical comparison to a group used by a political party with a group used by a political party. It could easily be any ideology or political party.

I know you didn't.  But the term "brown shirts" is a clear reference to the Nazi party's SA.  I'm not going scorched earth on you here, I just dislike any comparisons to the Nazis unless the person or group in question is literally espousing Nazi ideology.  It's far too charged a comparison to be fair in probably 99.99% of cases.

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 01:40 PM)Sled21 Wrote: There is no "If it's a crime." That is simply a red herring. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507


That's pretty straight forward. As for the brown shirt reference, it may not read right but I was referring to the protestors, not the Justice Dept. in that comparison. And it is strictly a historical comparison. The brown shirts were protestors used to shout down, silence, and obstruct opposing views from their party, much like Antifa et al. 

- Deleted my initial response in light of this answer.

For my new answer, yeah I would find it problematic if prosecution varies depending on political stance of the offenders. For sure. I still find it quite justifiable to prosecute Capitol stormers with more vigor, since the crime is far graver still. In the same sense as a bank robber is usually prosecuted with more vigor than someone stealing a candy bar, even though both things are crimes.

Again, not to diminish protests in front of private homes as being miniscule like candy stealing, for one it's morally reprehensible. But there's a difference in severity of a crime (I tend to agree with your interpretation, thanks for posting the word of the law, it appears to me you got that right) and hence there can be some difference in vigor from the prosecution's side.

(* Since SSF said what was to be said about the brown shirts comment, I delete that part of my post now)

[BigPapaKain]

(05-10-2022, 01:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah as I tried to make clear, I am not disputing said indisputable issue. Rallying in front of someone's private home is at the very least a shitty move aiming at intimidation and fear. Maybe it should be or is a crime. I just don't know (and am the wrong person to determine that) how that fares against the right to freely assemble and freedom of speech.

So it is to a point. As long as you're not on the property, it's not against the law. As determined when the SCotUS ruled that you could protest at abortion clinic employee's homes.

Turn about is fair play and all that jazz, I suppose.

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 03:44 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So it is to a point. As long as you're not on the property, it's not against the law. As determined when the SCotUS ruled that you could protest at abortion clinic employee's homes.

Turn about is fair play and all that jazz, I suppose.

Well, if the words sled quoted are actually the law as written (and I have no reason to believe he made that whole passage up) then protesting in front of a justice's house is actually illegal.

If it should be, I don't really know.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 03:44 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So it is to a point. As long as you're not on the property, it's not against the law. As determined when the SCotUS ruled that you could protest at abortion clinic employee's homes.

Turn about is fair play and all that jazz, I suppose.

Normally, yes.  However, as has been pointed out, and Sled provided the specifics, there is a law against trying to intimidate or influence a judge's decision.  If you want to argue whether that's what is happening or not, that's certainly a discussion that could be had.  But claiming it's the same as protesting outside a clinic is wrong, for reasons already provided.

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 03:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, if the words sled quoted are actually the law as written (and I have no reason to believe he made that whole passage up) then protesting in front of a justice's house is actually illegal.

If it should be, I don't really know.

It's cut and paste verbatim. The key difference between protesting in front of an abortion clinic and someone attached to the courts is it is considered tampering with the judicial process, is intimidating judges, jurors, etcl

[Sled21]

And Satan laughs at his useful idiots.....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/handmaids-tale-protesters-disrupt-mass-in-la-cathedral

[CKwi88]

(05-10-2022, 03:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, if the words sled quoted are actually the law as written (and I have no reason to believe he made that whole passage up) then protesting in front of a justice's house is actually illegal.

If it should be, I don't really know.

It is, provided that it is "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". 

I am decidedly not an attorney, but I feel that the pretty straightforward defense would be that this is just a protest, and not an attempt to sway the court one way or another. Is that the truth? Who knows. The fact that this is a reaction to a leaked draft of an opinion rather than an actual decision blurs the line a bit.

But either way, I imagine there are few federal prosecutors, regardless of perceived bias of the DoJ, that would enjoy trying to prove that intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of 12.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 04:40 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It is, provided that it is "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". 

I am decidedly not an attorney, but I feel that the pretty straightforward defense would be that this is just a protest, and not an attempt to sway the court one way or another. Is that the truth? Who knows. The fact that this is a reaction to a leaked draft of an opinion rather than an actual decision blurs the line a bit.

But either way, I imagine there are few federal prosecutors, regardless of perceived bias of the DoJ, that would enjoy trying to prove that intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of 12.

It being a leaked draft and not the final opinion actually works very much in favor of the protests being intimidation.  Showing up at their home is an act obviously designed to intimidate, otherwise why would you protest outside their home?  That coupled with some of the "calls to action" I have seen from groups organizing these protests on social media make the case much easier to prove then you appear to think.  That being said, Biden will pull a Gascon and turn a blind eye to it unless some violence occurs, so no one is getting prosecuted for breaking this law.

[CKwi88]

(05-10-2022, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It being a leaked draft and not the final opinion actually works very much in favor of the protests being intimidation.  Showing up at their home is an act obviously designed to intimidate, otherwise why would you protest outside their home?  That coupled with some of the "calls to action" I have seen from groups organizing these protests on social media make the case much easier to prove then you appear to think.  That being said, Biden will pull a Gascon and turn a blind eye to it unless some violence occurs, so no one is getting prosecuted for breaking this law.

Because they put up fences around the Supreme Court?  

It is what it is. Neither of us are attorneys, but I still believe that it is hardly a winning case. There is a reasonable argument to say it's just protesting and not intimidation. As long as there is no violence, I don't see enough of a case to merit getting prosecuted for allegedly breaking this law. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 06:02 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Because they put up fences around the Supreme Court?  

It is what it is. Neither of us are attorneys, but I still believe that it is hardly a winning case. There is a reasonable argument to say it's just protesting and not intimidation. As long as there is no violence, I don't see enough of a case to merit getting prosecuted for allegedly breaking this law. 

No, neither of us are attorneys, but I have worked in the criminal justice system for over twenty years.  I know what makes a prosecutable case and what does not.  Based on statements on social media and during these protests you could make a very credible beyond a reasonable doubt argument that the law is being broken here.  That being said, I do believe you are ultimately correct, no one is being prosecuted unless something violent happens.  But that has nothing to do with the law not being broken.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2022, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Barr made a statement on Fox that these protests are already illegal under federal law as an attempt to intimidate or dissuade a judge.  He also stated it was a state level crime in VA.  I've stated many times that I really dislike the idea of protesting at someone's private residence, but I recognize it's protected under the first amendment.  I know many here actively dislike Barr, but I don't think he'd get the law that wrong.

I mean, he doesn't have the most stellar record of legal opinions, but i don't doubt he is correct on this. However, even if folks were prosecuted for this I would find it interesting to watch it play out in the courts. I say thing because if it is a protest that would be legal if not for it being a judge, then I would be really curious to see the judicial review of these laws as it progresses. I have zero doubt that any jurist would uphold the precedent to protect themselves, but it would be interesting to see.

Edit to add: specifically with regards to the SCOTUS, I'd like to see the argument bear out that they are different than other jurists as they are more political in nature. There would be plenty of evidence to support the argument and I think it would be an interesting one to hear.

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 04:40 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It is, provided that it is "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". 

I am decidedly not an attorney, but I feel that the pretty straightforward defense would be that this is just a protest, and not an attempt to sway the court one way or another. Is that the truth? Who knows. The fact that this is a reaction to a leaked draft of an opinion rather than an actual decision blurs the line a bit.

But either way, I imagine there are few federal prosecutors, regardless of perceived bias of the DoJ, that would enjoy trying to prove that intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of 12.

Why do people protest? They protest to try to get someone to change something. They weren't there protesting before they draft was leaked, now they are there protesting.... for what? I think it is pretty clear cut they are trying to persuade the Justices to change their minds. IE, Illegal. In fact, their leaders are even saying that's what they are doing.

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-11-2022, 09:04 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Why do people protest? They protest to try to get someone to change something. They weren't there protesting before they draft was leaked, now they are there protesting.... for what? I think it is pretty clear cut they are trying to persuade the Justices to change their minds. IE, Illegal. In fact, their leaders are even saying that's what they are doing.

That's the point of protesting since dialogue doesn't work. You don't get social rights by simply politely asking. 

[CKwi88]

(05-11-2022, 09:04 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Why do people protest? They protest to try to get someone to change something. They weren't there protesting before they draft was leaked, now they are there protesting.... for what? I think it is pretty clear cut they are trying to persuade the Justices to change their minds. IE, Illegal. In fact, their leaders are even saying that's what they are doing.

I'm sure it's clear cut to you and very little would change your mind. 

[hollodero]

(05-11-2022, 12:06 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: That's the point of protesting since dialogue doesn't work. You don't get social rights by simply politely asking. 

Yeah, but to be fair, that is actually exactly his point, that this is what protests are trying to achieve.

And his additional point is that this kind of protest is illegal in front of a judge's house (or a witnesses house or a juror's house). Which imho makes sense in general, in general one would not want people trying to influence verdicts by directly influencing judges, witnesses, jurors and the like.

In the case of a SC justice, one might see that differently, since they are also quite political actors and hence a protest is more of a political protest. But overall, Sled's point still stands. The law as written probably forbids protesting in front of Alito's private home, and your assertion actually proves his point in that regard.

[Arturo Bandini]

Lol I'm french, we begin to protest at school and do that on daily basis.
That's our thing. Protest and taking the streets.
There's not one week without a protest and sometimes you don't even know why people are protesting

People were protesting the very evening in our last presidential election.

[*Nately120*]

(05-11-2022, 01:17 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Lol I'm french, we begin to protest at school and do that on daily basis.
That's our thing. Protest and taking the streets.
There's not one week without a protest and sometimes you don't even know why people are protesting

People were protesting the very evening in our last presidential election.

Americans seem to talk a big game about protesting and using guns to stand up to the government, but it's just an empty talking point.  

"The 2A is there so we are free to overthrow the government!"

"We are going to do something 80% of people don't want"

"We are going to protest that."

"You're breaking the law!"


And so on.  It's all talk isn't it?  I saw a Dr. Oz ad where his Turkish, Oprah-endorsed ass is wearing flannel and shooting guns over a bunch of country music and he mentions the second amendment and standing up to the government  I guess if he were still pro-choice he'd be packing heat right now, eh?