Inexcusable
-
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
Yeah, I noticed that.
Interesting that Cotton is calling for the AG to (cough) enforce the laws, under the threat of impeachment. There were a lot of people unhappy with Holder, but I don't recall such language. Of course, that might just because I'm an old geezer and my memory's failing.
For the sake of discussion, if the GOP takes the House in November, what is the likelihood that Garland will be impeached?
(too lazy to look it up)
Is the standard for conviction the same as impeachment and removal from office as the President?
-
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
One thing I have a minor disagreement with is here:
It is right that the Justice Department is prosecuting the crimes associated with January 6, but, for all the talk of insurrection, the actual charges being levied against offenders from that day include illegal . . . parading. We do not mean to trivialize January 6 — we mean to say that the federal government under the Biden administration has exactly the same duty to protect the Supreme Court that the federal government under the Trump administration had to protect Congress.
The difference is in the law. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of Congress. It happens ALL the time. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of the homes of Congress' members (as reprehensible as it is to "get in their faces." Chuck Schumer claims that it happens at his home 4 times a week.
The statute regarding demonstrating in front of the residence of a member of the judiciary is quite clear. It's illegal. Period.
-
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
@Mik said in Inexcusable:
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
Good piece.
-
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
-
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
Under Clinton in 1994 the Federal Government passed laws prohibiting obstruction of access to abortuaries.
Prohibited
§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances: (a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever-- (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services [19]
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship:[19][17]
Blocking a person’s access to the entrance of a facility Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility Trespassing on the property of a facility Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient Vandalism Threats of violence Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider Arson or threats of arson Bombings or bomb threats IntimidationNot prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech:[19][17]
Protesting outside of clinics Distributing literature Carrying signs Shouting (as long as no threats are made) Singing hymns Counseling -
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
Under Clinton in 1994 the Federal Government passed laws prohibiting obstruction of access to abortuaries.
Prohibited
§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances: (a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever-- (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services [19]
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship:[19][17]
Blocking a person’s access to the entrance of a facility Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility Trespassing on the property of a facility Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient Vandalism Threats of violence Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider Arson or threats of arson Bombings or bomb threats IntimidationNot prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech:[19][17]
Protesting outside of clinics Distributing literature Carrying signs Shouting (as long as no threats are made) Singing hymns Counseling@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
-
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
Why don't you go look at a real protest outside your neighborhood abortion clinic and report back?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
Why don't you go look at a real protest outside your neighborhood abortion clinic and report back?
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
Why don't you go look at a real protest outside your neighborhood abortion clinic and report back?
Like with most things, I imagine the behaviour of different people varies. I'm sure some people are very polite and respectful, and I'm fairly sure others are less so.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
Why don't you go look at a real protest outside your neighborhood abortion clinic and report back?
Like with most things, I imagine the behaviour of different people varies. I'm sure some people are very polite and respectful, and I'm fairly sure others are less so.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
Why don't you go look at a real protest outside your neighborhood abortion clinic and report back?
Like with most things, I imagine the behaviour of different people varies. I'm sure some people are very polite and respectful, and I'm fairly sure others are less so.
You can easily test it -- everyone I know who actively protest abortion clinics keep more a "witness of presence", typically praying rosaries, offering supportive information, not aggressively hectoring or confronting. Seriously, drive by your neighborhood abortion clinic on their typical service day, when protestors are most likely to congregate, and report back. I think you'll find the "shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic" is a cartoonish stereotype.
-
Seeing interesting analyses that the anti-picketing law is not constitutional under the first amendment since it is content based, not just 'time place and manner' based. Imagine the oddity of challenging it in this case? Would the justices need to recuse themselves?
At any rate no one has been arrested on it so it doesn't look like it will be employed.
