Inexcusable
-
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.
-
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
-
Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh’s home
A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.
Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, these people said.
The man was arrested at about 1:50 a.m. today, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.
“The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh,” McCabe said. “He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”Funny how that worked out.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Inexcusable:
It would be funny watching the fake sadness from tribal lefties if Biden got to nominate a replacement for an assassinated republican appointee.
I don't know if funny is the operative word, but it would damn sure be a show...
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh’s home
A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.
Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, these people said.
The man was arrested at about 1:50 a.m. today, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.
“The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh,” McCabe said. “He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”Funny how that worked out.
So what’s the score after that right wing nut went after that judge?
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
