Biden DOJ admits they haven't prosecuted a single person for illegally protesting outside SCOTUS justices' homes

[Faun]

Asked and answered, Simp.

There has been no SC ruling that shoots down the law against protesting outside a SC Justice's home.

Read that as many times as it takes to sink in that mushy skull of yours.

A pity I didn't ask you if the Supreme Court ruled on protesting outside of a justice's residence.

But no worries, I fully understand why you didn't want to answer the question I actually asked.

 

[Nostra]

A pity I didn't ask you if the Supreme Court ruled on protesting outside of a justice's residence.

But no worries, I fully understand why you didn't want to answer the question I actually asked.

Keep reading, Simp.

 

[hadit]

Great, so explain your logic for why the First Amendment protects protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of a courthouse but the First Amendment doesn't protect protesting justices from a public sidewalk outside of their residence...

Place of business vs home. Even the worst of liberals can understand that.

 

[Marener]

Are you saying the law that expressly forbids this activity is unconstitutional? If so, have you notified the Supreme Court? Come on, man, get with it!

Seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

It’s a public sidewalk. They’re engaging in speech.

 

[Marener]

No, it isn't.
There is a law against protesting at SCOTUS Justices' homes, though.
Educate yourself and think better, Moroner.

There’s a constitution that says you can’t make laws abridging free speech.

I think the constitution takes precedence.

 

[Orangecat]

I think the constitution takes precedence.

Yet you don't even capitalize the word, Moroner. Public school dropout?

 

[Nostra]

I guess you didn't read up on the case you cited, cuz it doesn't deal with protestors trying to influence judges, juries, etc as the statute in question addresses.

Your case deals with this statute:

Title 40 U.S.C. 13k

The statute in question regarding the Dimtard terrorists outside Kavanaugh's home is:

Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Here, go get educated Simp. Do you ever get tired of me making you look like the colossal moron you are?

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Faun was easy to run off once his dumbassery and lies were exposed.

 

[Faun]

I guess you didn't read up on the case you cited, cuz it doesn't deal with protestors trying to influence judges, juries, etc as the statute in question addresses.

Your case deals with this statute:

Title 40 U.S.C. 13k

The statute in question regarding the Dimtard terrorists outside Kavanaugh's home is:

Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Here, go get educated Simp. Do you ever get tired of me making you look like the colossal moron you are?

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Moron, the SCOTUS also shot down Cox v. Louisiana, which upheld Cox's conviction for violating [edit: § 14:401, a bill taken in haec verba from a bill which became] 18 U.S.C. § 1507...

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)

Cox v. Louisiana

supreme.justia.com

​

​

​

 

[Faun]

Place of business vs home. Even the worst of liberals can understand that.

The Constitution protects one but not the other??

 

[Faun]

Faun was easy to run off once his dumbassery and lies were exposed.

LOL

You never learn, Dumbfuck.

Ever!

 

[Nostra]

Moron, the SCOTUS also shot down Cox v. Louisiana, which upheld Cox's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1507...

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)

Cox v. Louisiana

supreme.justia.com

​

​

​

Your new case that you are clinging to:

Decided January 18, 1965

Statute in question:

379 U.S. 559

The Statute we are talking about has been amended and updated several times since your archaic reference to an totally unrelated statute, Simp.

Do you ever get tired of me kicking your moron?

 

[Nostra]

Moron, the SCOTUS also shot down Cox v. Louisiana, which upheld Cox's conviction for violating [edit: § 14:401, a bill taken in haec verba from a bill which became] 18 U.S.C. § 1507...

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)

Cox v. Louisiana

supreme.justia.com

​

​

​

Don't see Section 1507 of Title 18 mentioned anywhere in your link, Simp.

Here is a cut and paste of your entire ruling.

Do you ever get tired of me making you look like the colossal idiot you are?


OpinionsAudio & Media

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court​

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)
Cox v. Louisiana
No. 49
Argued October 21-22, 1964
Decided January 18, 1965
379 U.S. 559

Syllabus
Appellant was convicted of violating a Louisiana statute prohibiting picketing "near" a courthouse with the intent to obstruct justice, the charge being based on the facts set forth in No. 24, ante at 383 U. S. 536, and the conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Held:
1. The statute is narrowly drawn, furthers the State's legitimate interest of protecting its judicial system from pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create, is a valid regulation of conduct, as distinguished from pure speech, and does not infringe rights of free speech and assembly. Pp. 383 U. S. 562-564.
2. Even assuming the applicability of a "clear and present danger" test, there is no constitutional objection to applying the statute to conduct of the sort engaged in by the demonstrators. Pp. 383 U. S. 565-566.
3. The evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official required by the statute was constitutionally sufficient. Pp. 383 U. S. 566-567.
4. Appellant was, in effect, advised by the city's highest police officials that a demonstration at the place where it was held was not "near" the courthouse, and to permit him to be convicted for exercising the privilege they told him was available would be to allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, followed. Pp. 383 U. S. 569-571.
5. The dispersal order did not limit the time or place of the demonstration and remove the protection accorded appellant by the original grant of permission, but was based on the officials' erroneous conclusion that appellant's remarks constituted a breach of the peace. Pp. 383 U. S. 572-573.
245 La. 303, 158 So. 2d 172, reversed
Page 379 U. S. 560

 

[Muhammed]

Yea

it makes it illegal to yell fire in a theater, use hate speech, and doesn't protect you when you threaten SCOTUS Justices.

Wrong.

It is not illegal to yell "fire" in a theater, nor is it illegal to use "hate speech".

Making credible actionable threats of illegal violence directed towards a judge or jury in an effort to illegally undermine the justice system is illegal.

 

[Faun]

Don't see Section 1507 of Title 18 mentioned anywhere in your link, Simp.

Here is a cut and paste of your entire ruling.

Do you ever get tired of me making you look like the colossal idiot you are?


OpinionsAudio & Media

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court​

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)
Cox v. Louisiana
No. 49
Argued October 21-22, 1964
Decided January 18, 1965
379 U.S. 559

Syllabus
Appellant was convicted of violating a Louisiana statute prohibiting picketing "near" a courthouse with the intent to obstruct justice, the charge being based on the facts set forth in No. 24, ante at 383 U. S. 536, and the conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Held:
1. The statute is narrowly drawn, furthers the State's legitimate interest of protecting its judicial system from pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create, is a valid regulation of conduct, as distinguished from pure speech, and does not infringe rights of free speech and assembly. Pp. 383 U. S. 562-564.
2. Even assuming the applicability of a "clear and present danger" test, there is no constitutional objection to applying the statute to conduct of the sort engaged in by the demonstrators. Pp. 383 U. S. 565-566.
3. The evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official required by the statute was constitutionally sufficient. Pp. 383 U. S. 566-567.
4. Appellant was, in effect, advised by the city's highest police officials that a demonstration at the place where it was held was not "near" the courthouse, and to permit him to be convicted for exercising the privilege they told him was available would be to allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, followed. Pp. 383 U. S. 569-571.
5. The dispersal order did not limit the time or place of the demonstration and remove the protection accorded appellant by the original grant of permission, but was based on the officials' erroneous conclusion that appellant's remarks constituted a breach of the peace. Pp. 383 U. S. 572-573.
245 La. 303, 158 So. 2d 172, reversed
Page 379 U. S. 560

Dumbfuck...

Cox v. Louisiana

Louisiana's statute, § 14:401, under attack here, was taken in haec verba from a bill which became 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (1958 ed.). The federal statute was enacted by the Congress in 1950 to protect federal courts from demonstrations similar to the one involved in this case. It applies to the Supreme Court Building where this Court sits. I understand that § 1507 was written by members of this Court after disturbances similar to the one here occurred at buildings housing federal courts. Naturally, the Court could hardly be expected to hold its progeny invalid either on the ground that the use in the statute of the phrase "in or near a building housing a court" was vague or that it violated free speech or assembly. It has been said that an author is always pleased with his own work.​

 

[busybee01]

There's a very clearly worded law (18 U.S. Code § 1507) that prohibits these protests, and Joe Biden's administration has effectively told terrorists like the one who tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh that they are free to break that law without repercussions.

So what. The Republican governor of Maryland has defended the right to protest.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Man. The first amendment is a real bitch.

It is when you people conflate it with “a mandate to be heard” and you start infringing on other peoples’ rights.

 

[busybee01]

No it's not. But there's a law specific to what these terrorists did, and Biden won't punish them for it, because he told them to do it.

That is a violation of free speech rights. Larry Hogan has made that clear and he is a Republican.

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck...

Cox v. Louisiana​

​

Louisiana's statute, § 14:401, under attack here, was taken in haec verba from a bill which became 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (1958 ed.). The federal statute was enacted by the Congress in 1950 to protect federal courts from demonstrations similar to the one involved in this case. It applies to the Supreme Court Building where this Court sits. I understand that § 1507 was written by members of this Court after disturbances similar to the one here occurred at buildings housing federal courts. Naturally, the Court could hardly be expected to hold its progeny invalid either on the ground that the use in the statute of the phrase "in or near a building housing a court" was vague or that it violated free speech or assembly. It has been said that an author is always pleased with his own work.​

So the LA law took wording from the federal statute in question. Big fucking deal, Simp.


18 USC 1507 is still intact, so your argument is still shit. Tell us all why it is still on the books if the SC over ruled it as you claim.

 

[Faun]

So the LA law took wording from the federal statute in question. Big fucking deal, Simp.


18 USC 1507 is still intact, so your argument is still shit. Tell us all why it is still on the books if the SC over ruled it as you claim.

Dumbfuck, if the language of the bill is unconstitutional at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level.

 

[JoeB131]

Place of business vs home. Even the worst of liberals can understand that.

Place of business vs. home vs. uterus... Are you saying that the justices have a "RIGHT TO PRIVACY", that they just denied to half the population in this country?