Democrat Supreme Court strategy?

JayJay · 2022-05-09T11:37:35.416Z

GrandWazoo:

I don’t know why everyone is talking like this whole thing is a done deal. I wonder how many of the conservative Justices are worried that their legacy of their time on the SCOTUS bench will be only a re-run of what they said about Roe v. Wade in their confirmation hearings.

The conservative outcry will be much greater if they change their minds.

JayJay · 2022-05-09T11:46:38.206Z

I’m no lawyer, but this is the section of the federal code where this law appears.

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Seems pretty clear to me this part of the code is dealing with obstruction of justice in a CRIMINAL case, which this is not.

If protesting outside a justice’s house or outside SCOTUS is a violation of federal law, then anyone who has ever protested in front of the Supreme Court is in violation of this law.

And I think we can be pretty sure that’s not true.

zantax · 2022-05-09T12:05:31.909Z

JayJay:

I’m no lawyer, but this is the section of the federal code where this law appears.

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Seems pretty clear to me this part of the code is dealing with obstruction of justice in a CRIMINAL case, which this is not.

If protesting outside a justice’s house or outside SCOTUS is a violation of federal law, then anyone who has ever protested in front of the Supreme Court is in violation of this law.

And I think we can be pretty sure that’s not true.

Here is the relevant law and yes it is illegal.

from 18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

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.

Seems pretty simple and clear.

JayJay · 2022-05-09T12:06:51.477Z

I read the law. I also read under which section of law it resides.

You think it is not relevant that this is under the CRIMINAL code?

Has every protest that has ever occurred in front of the Supreme Court (and many of them have been conservatives protesting) a violation of federal law? And the government has just not bothered to prosecute?

zantax · 2022-05-09T12:22:55.192Z

JayJay:

I read the law. I also read under which section of law it resides.

You think it is not relevant that this is under the CRIMINAL code?

Has every protest that has ever occurred in front of the Supreme Court (and many of them have been conservatives protesting) a violation of federal law? And the government has just not bothered to prosecute?

Where else would I expect to find a law that makes something illegal? As for other supreme court protests, the majority of protests happen after the verdict, not before and lack of enforcement doesn’t invalidate the law in any case.

JayJay · 2022-05-09T12:40:41.834Z

zantax:

JayJay:

I read the law. I also read under which section of law it resides.

You think it is not relevant that this is under the CRIMINAL code?

Has every protest that has ever occurred in front of the Supreme Court (and many of them have been conservatives protesting) a violation of federal law? And the government has just not bothered to prosecute?

Where else would I expect to find a law that makes something illegal? As for other supreme court protests, the majority of protests happen after the verdict, not before and lack of enforcement doesn’t invalidate the law in any case.

No the protestors gather before, during and after the verdict.

The fact that this appears in the criminal code and is talking about obstruction of justice is in my eyes a clear signal as to what this statute applies to- criminalizing anyone who tries to intimidate a judge in a criminal case.

I’m not a lawyer, so I am not going to say for a fact this is true. But the fact that protests of Supreme Court cases have been going on since time immemorial and no one has ever been arrested for doing it leads me to believe I am right, and this is another attempt to paint LIBS as “dirty lawbreakers supported by a corrupt President”.

TommyLucchese · 2022-05-09T12:45:04.082Z

JayJay:

No the protestors gather before, during and after the verdict.

The fact that this appears in the criminal code and is talking about obstruction of justice is in my eyes a clear signal as to what this statute applies to- criminalizing anyone who tries to intimidate a judge in a criminal case.

I’m not a lawyer, so I am not going to say for a fact this is true. But the fact that protests of Supreme Court cases have been going on since time immemorial and no one has ever been arrested for doing it leads me to believe I am right, and this is another attempt to paint LIBS as “dirty lawbreakers supported by a corrupt President”.

For a bit of historical perspective, during the debate over Jay’s Treaty way back at the start, Jay talked about how he could walk the entire length of the thirteen colonies at night lit only by burning effigies of himself and he wasn’t exaggerating a ton.

If anything, Americans are punks now on protests. It used to invoke like, totally hypothetically, opening fire on a boat full of Pinkertons, then forcing their surrender and marching them through the street for public humiliation.

JayJay · 2022-05-09T12:49:48.927Z

I’m also getting a little annoyed at the misuse of the term doxxing.

Making it easy to find SCOTUS justices’ home addresses is perhaps not nice, but it is NOT doxxing. Where they live is public information, not private information, nor were their identities revealed…everyone already knows who they are.

Doxxing has a specific meaning…it means someone is trying to keep their identity a secret, and you expose it. It does NOT mean you take publicly available information about public figures and make it easier for everyone else to find it.

TommyLucchese · 2022-05-09T12:52:48.208Z

JayJay:

Making it easy to find SCOTUS justices’ home addresses is perhaps not nice, but it is NOT doxxing.

You can get that kind of info off of voter reg rolls for free and the government will assist you in doing it because they have to.

Bill.in.PA · 2022-05-09T12:52:53.428Z

The strategy appears to be to bully the court into submission using violence and threats of violence.

The White House is openly supporting pro-abortion protests at the homes of justices. The Justice Department is doing nothing to control the protests even as pro-abortion violence is spreading around the country.

Realize that congress could simply pass a law to set a national abortion policy if the Roe v. Wade is overturned, but Democrats are fighting against that outcome tooth and nail.

These actions are a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law. Antifa mobs and their allies are modern-day Brown Shirts.

The Western Journal – 8 May 22

Reports Indicate Justice Alito and His Family Have Been Moved to a Secure...

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his family may have been moved to protect their safety, according to new reports.

Est. reading time: 3 minutes

Breitbart – 9 May 22

Justice Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS ‘Can’t Be Bullied’ on Roe v. Wade

“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you the outcomes you want,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday.

JayJay · 2022-05-09T12:56:03.568Z

Once again the right wing blogosphere is amplifying itself.

Breitbart posted the story about Alito “reportedly” being moved to a secure location, with absolutely NO sourcing or support of its claim.

And now all the other rw blogs are circulating it.

How long until Breitbart itself cites the blogs that cited Breitbart as proof their original claim was true?

Paul_Thomson · 2022-05-09T13:12:06.335Z

Bill.in.PA:

The strategy appears to be to bully the court into submission using violence and threats of violence.

The White House is openly supporting pro-abortion protests at the homes of justices. The Justice Department is doing nothing to control the protests even as pro-abortion violence is spreading around the country.

Realize that congress could simply pass a law to set a national abortion policy if the Roe v. Wade is overturned, but Democrats are fighting against that outcome tooth and nail.

These actions are a direct assault on democracy the rule of law. Antifa mobs and their allies are modern-day Brown Shirts.

Personally, I believe it is more sinister. Democrat leadership don’t want to merely intimidate over Row v. Wade. I believe they are using this revision of Row v Wade to set their radical base onto running down constitutional SC justices and forcing more of them into early retirement or demise before the end of Xiden’s term so they can replace them with SC justices who regard the US republican Constitution as silly putty to be interpreted socialistically.

FreeAndClear · 2022-05-09T13:15:21.746Z

Of course. And they also killed Scalia…

WuWei · 2022-05-09T23:51:58.022Z

JayJay:

GrandWazoo:

I don’t know why everyone is talking like this whole thing is a done deal. I wonder how many of the conservative Justices are worried that their legacy of their time on the SCOTUS bench will be only a re-run of what they said about Roe v. Wade in their confirmation hearings.

The conservative outcry will be much greater if they change their minds.

I don’t think so.

EternalVigilance · 2022-05-10T02:42:34.395Z

We’re acting like this is a new phenomenon, while Democratic leadership has been fomenting violence against Justices for years. It’s a feature of all progressives, not a bug.

New York Post – 6 Mar 20

Chuck Schumer’s threat to justices just new low in Democrats’ SCOTUS bullying

Sorry, Charlie: Your excuse for threatening Supreme Court justices doesn’t cut it. New York’s own Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, tried Thursday to walk back the direct threats he made t…

Supreme_War_Pig · 2022-05-10T03:33:44.764Z

WuWei:

JayJay:

GrandWazoo:

I don’t know why everyone is talking like this whole thing is a done deal. I wonder how many of the conservative Justices are worried that their legacy of their time on the SCOTUS bench will be only a re-run of what they said about Roe v. Wade in their confirmation hearings.

The conservative outcry will be much greater if they change their minds.

I don’t think so.

Me either. I think they said " let’s be legends" and went for it. And if THAT is the case, look out…

zantax · 2022-05-10T14:28:50.335Z

JayJay:

I’m also getting a little annoyed at the misuse of the term doxxing.

Making it easy to find SCOTUS justices’ home addresses is perhaps not nice, but it is NOT doxxing. Where they live is public information, not private information, nor were their identities revealed…everyone already knows who they are.

Doxxing has a specific meaning…it means someone is trying to keep their identity a secret, and you expose it. It does NOT mean you take publicly available information about public figures and make it easier for everyone else to find it.

You think the justices want their home addresses made more readily available? No it’s doxxing, I gave you the example from Webster of people posting the addresses of cops gleaned from public tax records.

zantax · 2022-05-10T14:32:02.540Z

No congress can’t do any such thing. Using what enumerated power? If the ruling stays the same the court has indicated there is nothing in the constitution about abortion, so where did the necessary enumerated power for congress to enter into states to regulate abortion come from? Congress can try but this court as currently constituted would strike it down.

JayJay · 2022-05-10T14:40:55.500Z

zantax:

JayJay:

I’m also getting a little annoyed at the misuse of the term doxxing.

Making it easy to find SCOTUS justices’ home addresses is perhaps not nice, but it is NOT doxxing. Where they live is public information, not private information, nor were their identities revealed…everyone already knows who they are.

Doxxing has a specific meaning…it means someone is trying to keep their identity a secret, and you expose it. It does NOT mean you take publicly available information about public figures and make it easier for everyone else to find it.

You think the justices want their home addresses made more readily available? No it’s doxxing, I gave you the example from Webster of people posting the addresses of cops gleaned from public tax records.

They’re public figures. They’re not some anonymous joes.

And then there’s this:

https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/privacy/what-is-doxxing

Releasing personal information that’s publicly available and obtained legally is generally not a crime.

These folks can be potentially arrested for intimidation/harrassment/etc…but not doxxing because it was information they very likely obtained legally, as I did for Justice Kavanaugh’s home address.

WorldWatcher · 2022-05-10T14:56:28.588Z

Bill.in.PA:

Realize that congress could simply pass a law to set a national abortion policy if the Roe v. Wade is overturned, but Democrats are fighting against that outcome tooth and nail.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-vote-wednesday-abortion-rights-bill-schumer-says-2022-05-08/
.
.
.
Psst - the DEMs are the ones that want a national abortion rights law to get through Congress.

WW