Probably not enough to make a charge stick, though, I'd think. They'd really need some emails or texts or something where some of them make their intentions explicit.
Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
There can be infinite reasons why somebody exercises free speech. One could be just to bring attention to an issue, another could be they don't like somebody (like a conservative justice).
You need a guilty act and a guilty intent, and an attorney could have a field day with the intent element.
So they just by chance happened to turn up outside the 6 justices homes right when it leaked that Roe v Wade would probably by overturned. But they could be there for many different reasons. Got it.
Maybe they are protesting what they feel to be a foregone conclusion. Maybe they think certain justices suck.
Yep. Can just say they were there to express their frustration and anger - that's not the same as intent to influence.
I really think laws need to be enacted to safeguard peoples' homes. Private neighborhoods. Etc. it's not okay
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
So you think protesting should be illegal? How about 10 or more people congregating together? Outlawed too?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Actually, go back and read Roe. MTIOF posted it the other day. There IS a fundamental logic to it (ironically an originalist one) but apparently, according to Alito et al. it got the historical facts wrong and drew the wrong conclusions from the facts it did cite.
Yeah, I don't know. I think some things we should leave to society to discourage instead of using the law. Where'd you come down on Snyder v. Phelps?
Their argument would be the same if it was in front of Kagan's or Sotomayor's house, I'm sure.
Yes, they can just as easily express frustration and anger in places other than peoples' homes.
This whole playing dumb about their intent is ridiculous.
My argument is that these protests are dumb and offensive, and maybe even criminal under 1507, but very difficult to prove in court. So, yes, that would stay the same no matter whose house it was.
Are you capable of not going after individual posters? That really appears to be your main purpose here.
Agree re society. Homes should be off limits. Snyder was a public street and followed police directives I thought. This. Blm going to the mayor's home in Stl. Private neighborhood. Society should greatly discourage
Just read the statute.
"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...."
Do you see the part that says, specifically "pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court.....or in OR NEAR A BUILDING OR RESIDENCE OCCUPIED OR USED BY SUCH JUDGE..."?
There is no question that the protesters are breaking the law. Garland is a woke puppet - thank God he's not a SC Justice.
You did because it's a hypothetical. If it was a real situation, your answer would be different.
Oh, the case was not on point for this, to be sure. But I've found it to be a good barometer for free speech absolutists. After all, you can't defend a guy like Phelps without a really strong commitment to speech rights that go far beyond what most of us are intrinsically comfortable with.
All* crimes require both an act and intent. They are called actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). It's a foundational aspect of all criminal law dating back centuries.
* There are limited exceptions where an act can be criminalized without intent. This is called a "strict liability" crime, and is generally restricted to minor violations.
Someone said something about protesters offering to mow the lawn. I'd be down for that.
I guess all those lawyers who say the statute can be applied don't understand the law like you do.
What are you talking about? I didn't say the law can't be applied. In fact, I have said numerous times since Spartan brought it up that it was a good argument. I even specifically suggested to you that this was a better peg to hang your hat on, instead of the assault thing. But, Jimbo is right, you can't assume the intent. You have to prove it. That's why it's listed as part of the crime in the statute. It's an element of the crime, and every element must be proven.
Sorry, I thought you were saying it couldn't be applied because there was no criminal act or intent.
Well, there's a lot of things I don't see how you could possibly get out of what I post, so I guess we're even.
If you wonder why people think you're an arrogant dick, look to your response.
I don't wonder. You don't wonder why people think you're an asshole, do you? I assume you don't. The way you post in the Ukraine thread is so vastly different from the way you post in every other thread, that I assume you must be quite self-aware of what you're doing.
We all act out parts on this little forum. Mine is to fetishize accuracy, to the point of being arrogant. Yours is to demean people and spout nonsense.
You like how I post on the Ukraine thread because I agree with you.
I am LMAO at you saying your fetish is accuracy. That's a knee-slapper.
You engage in name calling and go after other posters: you wouldn't do this in real life because somebody would knock your teeth out.
Agree? No, I like how you post in the Ukraine thread because you contribute without being a jerk.
Which was law I was referring to. If you ever actually get to court are you as dumb as you are on here because I can't imagine anyone hiring you.
what about not liking a liberal judge? Would that be different somehow for you?
Yeah, I'm sure you had that statute in mind. No question.
My sprinklers would be on to water the street.
