That’s correct
"You guys … " 
1 Like
Yep. We had an incident some 15 - 20 years ago where a Jury Nullification advocate was arrested (and convicted) for Jury tampering just for picketing with a 1-800-tell jury sign on the sidewalk in front of the Courthouse entrance because Jurors coming into the Courthouse could not reasonably miss seeing his message. Ironically, the prosecutor of the case presented orders of magnitude more information about jury nullification to his Jury than the defendant ever did.
Had I been on that Jury, he would either have been found not guilty or the jury would have hung.
The first Amendment guarantees your right to say whatever you want. It does not relieve you from the consequences of what actions you take while you are saying it.
3 Likes
Jury nullification would be a great thread. Doesn’t necessarily split on left right lines.
Selective prosecution means that there are always resources to investigate angry parents at school board meetings and suspicious handles on garage doors. On the other hand, there is never time to investigate fire-bombings of pro-life clinics and a campaign of intimidation against conservative justices.
1 Like
Some people just can’t wait for a night of discount riot shopping.
2 Likes
How about now? Will there be any arrests? Fake news prints bull feces, the sheople eat it and looky, looky…the political dirty work is getting done. Where is the authority to stop this?
2 Likes
But a stop to what?
Film makers telling a story in a documentary, or
Protesters protesting on public streets and pubic sidewalks? (Link in the Fox story of video of the protesters on the public sidewalk.)
The government should have the authority to stop peaceful protests?
WW
Protesting at the homes of judges, illegal.
1 Like
Not anymore illegal than when this thread was started. Even less so, because there is no deliberation they are trying to affect.
It still sucks, and I wish they wouldn’t do it though.
Only when they are considering a case before them.
The protesters in the last few days have been protesting abortion. There is no abortion case before the Justices to impede which is needed under " 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,…".
During the time that Dobbs was under consideration by the court? Yep. Now? Not so much.
WW
Agreed. IMHO, the protests should be before the court building.
WW
1 Like
There will undoubtedly be more abortion cases before them at some point. They are trying to influence their decisions. Doesn’t say anything about current cases.
I guess you only get arrested at certain houses.
5 Likes
