It was leaked not publicly made yet. Which means it’s still in deliberation.
If the decision was made and then made known regardless of whether it was publically made, how can they intentionally act to influence?
How do you know the leak couldn’t have been a lie? The point stands the SCOTUS did not make it official and they were picketed which is still considered influencing.
1 Like
Yay we are getting there
The statute says with intent is to influence a judge
Does the leak create a defense for the picketers?
How can the doj prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the leak showed that they had no intent to influence a decision?
No because it’s not an official statement from the SCOTUS itself, it’s a leak that has no veracity much like the Dossier. It’s not law till it’s announced! If the leak happened and nothing was said by SCOTUS and picketing happened, they were trying to intimidate hoping the judges would make a different public ruling different from the leak. It was an intimidation thing. A ruling isn’t official till the judge deems it so.
1 Like
There is nothing in the statute that requires that decision be officially announced.
Not the decision becoming the law of the land but the actual decision being made by the judge
That’s what the statute addresses. The actual act of making a decision
There is nothing in it about public announcement.
LOL if it hasn’t been announced it means it’s still in deliberation. Which means it still can be influenced. No it talks about picketing with the intent of influencing a decision which was absolutely the case here.
That’s the assumption. That it’s it’s still in deliberation. The leak leaked the decision itself which means the decision was made just not announced
Intent is problematic under that set of facts.
Not a lawyer but from reading this bsck and forth if the law applies like you said how come protestors outside courts which happens regularly are not prosecuted. They are protesting with an intent to change the outcome.
A leak doesn’t leak itself, and there was nothing to verify the truthfulness of it, again it’s not an official decision till they announce it as one. The reason they picketed was because they got the leak and was hoping intimidating judges would influence a changed decision. It’s obvious why they were there, it was to intimidate a favorable outcome.
It’s by their homes. It was a problem. I agree they have no business being by their homes. However. Whether it’s prosecutable is a whole other issue
The real fun question is who advised them…. They knew what they were doing
Some actually are. Try this stuff at Kentanji Browns house and see what happens. People got arrested for protesting outside Pelosis home.
1 Like
There ya go
Well the courts reaction to the leak verified it…
Investigation!!! 
It wasn’t a decision till they announced it, the point still stands. It could still be influenced.
There is nothing in the statute requires public announcement
The leak created a defense.
The issue is that they abused the leak. I think the doj would have trouble proving their case because the protestors abused the existence of th leak.
Actually the Leak proves intent! They found out something and picketed and intimidated hoping it would influence and make a difference.
It’s the opposite you probably cant prove intent to change the decision if you are protesting after a leak of the decision….
Isnt thay down to local law enforcement? So could differ depending where they live? If you want to be a public figure then you have to take some loss of privacy. As long as they are not trespassing or impeding their ability to go to and from their home they can protest away. No one should be arrested.
No one is forced to be a politician or supreme court judge.
Protest Pelosi its jail for you
1 Like
Dude she is not a judge.
