Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is It A Good Idea To Allow Threats and Intimidation Of Justices?

Chuck Schumer, threatening Supreme Court justices at an abortion rally in 2020: "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you.

[image=https://i.insider.com/62a0d6d82253ea001951bcc7?width=1200&format=jpeg]

Protesters at Kavanaugh's home

18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States.....

Remember how allowing smash and grab, car hijacking, release of prisoners tended to embolden criminals?

Do you think maybe it's time to bring the hammer down?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

soar2newhighs

I could be mistaken here but having read the USC code cited, the only one I could see in violation by his communications about certain justices is Chuck Schumer.

I’m looking at the code and with respect to anyone protesting peacefully they are protected by the first amendment and the code does not directly address that.

What I’m not sure about is if any laws are being violated regarding any children of the justices. Apparently justice Barrett’s children may have been made a part of this anger by those opposed to the ruling that will come down, and certain information has or may have been released on them and their physical locations.

As for those opposed to the leaked ruling which may come to pass, these people do not have the will or fortitude to do anything at the Supreme Court like what took place on Jan 6th. And that is probably in their best interests not to.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@soar2newhighs You are gonna need this to spread your bullschiff.

soar2newhighs

@sunsporter1649 why the meme? Am I wrong? What don’t you agree with or have a differing opinion on?

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@soar2newhighs LOL, those clowns jackbooting in front of the justices home are there to sell ice cream, right?

soar2newhighs

@sunsporter1649 They are protesting and my question is, are they in violation of the USC code? Or are they exercising their first Amendment right?
Or do you think they’re being given a pass if in fact they’re violating the USC?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

Tell Mayor Lightfoot that her ordinance is unconstituional.

"CHICAGO (AP) — Six people were arrested outside the home of Chicago’s mayor [Lightfoot], where protesting has been limited through enforcement of an ordinance barring protests in residential areas, authorities said Sunday."

[c=009E4F]https://apnews.com/article/il-state-wire-b3486a32df74c923597fbfb9d2b4e0f2[/c]

Amazing how that works when a Democrat is protested against, isn't it...? 🤔

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@sunsporter1649

Only when Joe drops by.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell Beat me too it...

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell It would appear that when said ordinance was being prepared, no legal review especially by say, the ACLU was done or by any other group who is concerned about the right of people to peacefully protest. And that is a failure by any number of people in power and the judicial system and no one should have been arrested if they were peaceful in their protests.

But this kind of thing is not new for her. During the rioting in Chicago, she deemed is necessary to have her house barricaded and protected by the CPD 24/7.

And yes I think it’s unconstitutional.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@soar2newhighs Seen Judge Crater lately?

soar2newhighs

@sunsporter1649 Last time I saw ANY Judge I’d been supbpoenaed to testify. Been a while. That said, no more postings
for a few hours while I enjoy my Friday evening with a pizza and a six pack of Yuengling . Later. Keep up the good fight!

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

I think private residences should be off limits for protests.
How could an official [i]not[/i] be intimidated if, say, her children had to pass through a line of "peaceful protesters" in order to go to school? What guarantee would there be that all the protesters would remain "peaceful"? Armed guards for the children, perhaps, with AR-15s?

I say peacefully protest all you want in front of City Hall or the Supreme Court, but protests in front of private residences are [i]inherently[/i] threatening, and therefore NOT "peaceful."

And of course the "peaceful protesters" and whoever sent them know that perfectly well too.

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell Two things: 1. If the protests are in violation of the U.S. Code, then the actions of protestors are being ignored. 2. Some states as I read have put forth bills to keep addresses of Various officials private. Though that may not work.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

1. Yes, Garland IS ignoring the "peaceful protesters'" actions. He wouldn't stand for it for a minute if protesters showed up in front of Sotomayor's house, for example.
Actually, it might be a good idea if "peaceful protesters" started picketing Sotomayor's or Kagan's house , to expose the double standards of law enforcement by Democrats.

2. Seems to have worked pretty well for Mayor Lightfoot.

3. You didn't address my point of "peaceful protests" in front of a private residence being[i] inherently [/i] threatening.

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell First and foremost if there are peaceful protests in front of the homes, now, of justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, I would think that there would be a limited police presence. And if so, I would think that word would have gone out to them that the children might be subject to some form of non violent intimidation and that they would step in to prevent it. I would hope that is the case.

Any protest(s) outside a residence brings uncertainty , anxiety and I agree an inherent threat. It is not a normal, every day event .

I’ll say this, and that is, when the decision comes down as final, that is when wee I’ll see how these protests are conducted and how they are handled.
And if there is violence then IMO Senator Chuck Schumer should be looked at and dealt with as inciting violence.

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell Since 18 May ‘22 the U.S. Marshal Service has been ordered by the DOJ to do 24/7 security for all the SCOTUS judges at their residences.
Now Monday the 13th there are reports in the news that there will be protests outside the Supreme Court. So we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

And are the U.S. Marshals doing something like this? In a residential neighborhood...? 🤔

[c=009E4F]https://nypost.com/2022/05/11/scotus-receives-us-marshals-protection-amid-roe-v-wade-mess/[/c]

"The US Marshals said in a statement that assistance will be provided as needed."
That's why I would be interested in seeing what action they would take if, say, Kagan's home were to be "peacefully" picketed.

Meanwhile, Nancy has blocked the House from taking up the Supreme Court protection bill that the Senate unanimously passed on May 9th, nine days [i]before [/i]Garland got around to issuing his orders to the US Marshals.

[c=009E4F]https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-touts-blocking-supreme-court-security-bill-brett-kavanaugh-threat-1714922[/c]

[media=https://youtu.be/wbuhdFfbyIc]

soar2newhighs

[image deleted]@Thinkerbell

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

According to ABC, those are POLICE (scruffiest-looking I've ever seen), not marshals, and they posed on May 11 in front of Roberts' house, a full week before Garland got around to giving his orders to the marshals.

And even a WaPo staff writer thinks picketing in front of a justice's home is illegal. What does he know that Garland doesn't...? 🤔 🤔 🤔

[c=009E4F]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/[/c]

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell Perhaps tomorrow will be the litmus test. It will take place outside the Supreme Court. And then we’ll see what happens.
As for the image whether it was of police or Marshall’s, someone took a stand and said these people WILL be protected.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@soar2newhighs

[quote]"...someone took a stand and said these people WILL be protected."[/quote]

Was that "someone" Garland...? 🤔
Not to my knowledge.

soar2newhighs

@Thinkerbell Probably the local law enforcement agency(ies) Tomorrow we’ll see what takes place re: protests.