“When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices

Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.”  For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.

While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes.

Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.”

No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media.

We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.”

Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for a tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet).

That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial.

The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.

In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers.

For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is a manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.


403 thoughts on ““When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices”

  1. I don’t understand Roberts’s reported position. I don’t understand how you can uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe and Casey.

    1. Lysias,

      According to reports (which might or might not be accurate), he’s arguing that there’s a constitutional right to abortion, but viability is not the correct line to draw for where states can proscribe it. So Roe and Casey would be upheld in part, unlike Alito’s draft.

      1. In oral argument, Roberts was looking for a way to draw a line based on the idea of providing a woman sufficient time to make a choice. This, he believes, would be the appropriate conceptual basis to give effect to a constitutional right to choose arising somehow out of the 14th amendment as a fundamental liberty. He could avoid drawing a line and simply uphold 15 weeks as enough time.

      2. So Roe and Casey would be upheld in part, unlike Alito’s draft.

        And the next State will pass a law setting the limit at 12 weeks. or 9 weeks, or heartbeat.
        Law suits will be filed and SCOTUS will again be forced to summon the emanation, and penumbra to divine what exactly makes a 15 week cut off constitutional, and 12 week cut off un-constitutional.

        That is the idiocy Blackman and SCOTUS foisted on the nation with Roe. Now is the time to end it.

    2. I guess it’s kinda like upholding ACA by saying the penalty is a tax when Obama specifically said it wasn’t a tax. Or like the SCOTUS allowing racial discrimination in Affirmative Action even though they previously ruled racial discrimination was unconstitutional. There are no limits to what a human mind can rationalize in order to do what it wants.

  2. Just to clarify, protesting Congress at the Capitol on Jan 6th, which turned into trespassing, illegal parading, and in some cases, interfering with Congress, was an insurrection and treason, but encouraging people to terrorize Supreme Court Justices in their private homes, in order to intimidate them to change their ruling, is a civic duty.

    1. No, Karen: Jan 6th was a well-planned and coordinated event to prevent Joe Biden from taking office, with the full engagement of Trump and his campaign. There was nothing to “protest” on Jan 6th, other than the fact that Trump lost. Jan 6th was Trump’s last stand and came after Trump couldn’t get state election officials to falsify vote counts, after 60+ courts dismissed his lawsuits for lack of evidence and after he couldn’t bully Mike Pence into ignoring his Constitutional duty. If you watched anything other than Hannity, you’d know this. There’s telephonic proof that the Proud Boys were communicating with someone at the White House.

      No one has “terrorized” any “Justice”: protesting is allowed by the First Amendment. No one has committed any crimes or has been arrested.

      1. No, Karen: Jan 6th was a well-planned and coordinated event to prevent Joe Biden from taking office,

        Except for the planning and coordination parts

      2. Natacha:

        Did you read the FBI report about the lack of planning for almost all of them?

      3. You are delusional as well as full of disinformation.
        In 2016,The Democrats did the same thing that they accused Trump of. They tried to change electors votes and Congressmen objected to certain electors.
        Further, Trump made no statement that had not been uttered by numerous other policticians, so your incitement allegation is frivolous. Consequently, the January 6 Commission is strictly political. Democrats had no outcry for an investigation when Democrats took over the Wisconsin Capitol overrunning its police for days, and further had no outcry when the Democrats attempted to invade the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings.
        Grow up. Quit misrepresenting your biased, fallacious opinions as fact.

        1. That’s a bald-faced lie. Not only did Clinton acknowledge the loss of the election the day after it was announced, but no one at any time made up the story that the VP could reject electoral votes.

          1. No lie. You are the liar. Do your homework. Numerous Congressmen appeared in 2016 at the counting and tried to object to electors to prevent Trump from being elected.
            Once again, you misrepresent your false opinion as fact.

            1. I didn’t write that no Democrats objected to any states votes. Not only are you a liar, you’re a very poor reader.

              1. You clearly implied it in your all inclusive ridiculous allegations. You’re still a liar.

                1. I made no such implication. You inferred it, because you’re an idiot, and you assume that means everyone else must be as well.
                  Sorry, but that’s also incorrect.

                  1. So then you admit that in 2016 the Democrats and their protestors engaged in the same conduct as the Republicans and their protestors engaged in 2020.

      4. Try reading the law. You are full of disinformation.
        Jury tampering is prohibited. It is not covered by the First Amendment. Jury tampering is codified in Federal Statutes to not only cover jurors, but also judges.
        Quit misrepresenting your fallacious opinion as fact.

  3. The question to ask Professor Chavetz is whether he would make the same observation if the “mob” was haranguing justices with whom he agrees.

  4. You have become such a joke Turley that it’s truly sad. Again dodging the substance of the Dobbs opinion, focusing once again on how horrible, terrible and outrageous was the leak, Turley actually complains about a professor supporting protests at the homes of the now-infamous 5 who lied their way onto the SCOTUS, decrying the use of “any means necessary” … to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.”

    Um, Turley, what about the pathetic loser who refused to accept the will of the American people and who, after being unable to bully state election officials into awarding him votes he didn’t get, litigate or coerce Mike Pence into disregarding the Constitution, started a riot to get his way? Only after you address the infamous 5’s lying to get onto the SCOTUS and the outrageousness of Trump’s use of “any means necessary” to force himself on the American people, are you in a position to comment about anyone else using “any means necessary”. Of course, you only paid to write attack pieces against Democrats and Joe Biden, but you already have lost whatever credibility you might have once had.

    1. To Natcha,

      How about HRC who falsely claimed that the 2016 election was stolen by the Russians? How about the administrative coup that worked itself into a frenzy to delegitimize a duly elected President. The “infamous five” were no more disingenuous then any of the progressives nominated by Obama and Clinton. Just a few examples of how ridiculous your assertions are in the comment above. Your ideological blinders preclude you from making a rational argument and your hysterical support of Jacobin destruction of our pillar institutions.

      1. It is an established fact that Russians helped Trump cheat which he found necessary because every poll predicted he would lose. This is proven by the Mueller investigation, Dan Coats, appointed by Trump as head of US Intelligence says it’s true (for which he was fired), as did the findings of a REPUBLICAN Senate Committee. These are FACTS proven by EVIDENCE. What do you have–Tucker Carlson repeating Trump’s lies? Trump will NEVER be viewed as anything but a cheater and liar, which was his reputation before he plotted to force himself on the American people.

        1. Natcha who ever is telling all of this is lying. Mueller proved nothing. Even the DNC email hack has never been proven. The FBI only took the word of Crowd Strike.
          We know this because Roger Stones Attorney requested the evidence of the DNC email hack from the government. The government replied they had no such evidence and sent the redacted Crowd Strike report. The only thing the Government ever had.

          1. “Roger Stones Attorney requested the evidence of the DNC email hack from the government. ”

            You’re lying or willfully ignorant.

            His attorney asked “to compel discovery of the unredacted copies of the CrowdStrike Reports.” He did not ask for the government’s own evidence. If you do not understand the difference, that would be willful ignorance as well.

            “The government replied they had no such evidence”

            You’re again lying or willfully ignorant. They said that they didn’t have unredacted copies of the CrowdStrike Reports.
            They did NOT say that they had no evidence themselves.

            1. They did NOT say that they had no evidence themselves.This is the govt response to the request

              “As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted. However, the government has provided defense counsel the opportunity to review additional unredacted CrowdStrike reports it possesses, and defense counsel has done so”

              The government clearly states, the only DNC hack investigative materials that exist is that done by Crowd strike.The FBI has not generated any internal Reports concerning the DNC emails. Because the FBI never did an investigation. Or they are lying to the court.

              1. No, what you just quoted does NOT “clearly state[], the only DNC hack investigative materials that exist is that done by Crowd strike.”

                The very first paragraph clearly states: “Defendant Roger J. Stone has filed a motion seeking to compel production of certain unredacted reports from the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. Doc. 103. The government has no reason to believe the redacted information constitutes Brady material and does not possess the information the defendant seeks.”

                They’re saying they don’t have an unredacted Crowdstrike reports — the sole thing that Stone’s attorneys requested in the motion I linked to — and it says NOTHING about the government’s own analyses of data, which Stone’s attorneys never requested.

                You are dishonest or willfully ignorant here. You chose over and over to misinterpret or ignore the plain text on the page, because you want to believe your misinterpretation more than you want to understand the truth.

              2. COMEY:Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. …

                HURD:… So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaksand when — youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians.

                COMEY: That’s correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

                1. As I pointed out to you the last time you quoted that: the “forensics” that he’s talking about are the byte-for-byte copies of the servers that Shawn Henry testified about.

                  You don’t care. You want to cling to your false belief that they did no independent analysis of the evidence.

                  1. No, forensic is the result.

                    Hurd “youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians”

                    COMEY: That’s correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

                    pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law or public discussion and debate.

                    No reporting or testimony mentions anything about a ‘byte by byte copy’

                    That Shawn Henry lied with impunity, is SOP for leftists. The FBI has Zero, proprietary investigative results.

                    1. Oh FFS, you can’t even bother to look up what the government itself means by “forensics” in the context of cyber crime: https://nij.ojp.gov/digital-evidence-and-forensics

                      “the collection and analysis of digital evidence, also known as computer forensics”

                      Comey said “we got the forensics from [Crowdstrike],” In other words, Crowdstrike gave the FBI all of the digital evidence that Crowdstrike had.

                      You will persist in your false claims. You do not want to learn anything that will show you’re wrong.

                  2. “Comey said “we got the forensics from [Crowdstrike],” In other words, Crowdstrike gave the FBI all of the digital evidence that Crowdstrike had.”

                    If comey had gotten the data, he would have said he had the data.

                    The ONLY report ever circulated is the Crowd Strike conclusions.

                    1. Again: the FBI’s meaning of “forensics” INCLUDES the digital evidence, no matter how many times you deny it.

            1. The govt response infers that Stone in fact did ask for more. Because the response is the govt does not posses what is asked for.

              Which aligns with Comey’s testimony, the only thing the FBI has is redacted Crowd Strike reports.

    2. NUTCHACHACHA marauds with the protection of wholly unconstitutional generational welfare, affirmative action, “fair housing,” “non-discrimination,” forced busing, the still unenforced Naturalization Act of 1802, etc., etc., etc.

      NUTCHACHACHA is capable, superior, brave and courageous – with her illicit political crutches grasped firmly in her hands.

      You go, girl!

  5. Jonathan: Not to digress but you have apparently missed the latest news on Elon Musk. Here is some of it:

    –A federal judge in SFO just ruled that Musk’s 2018 tweets about securing Saudi funding for his attempt to take Tesla private were inaccurate and reckless. This decision marks a victory for investors who alleged Musk inflated stock prices by making false and misleading statements that resulted in investor losses.

    –Musk now says he would welcome Trump back to Twitter. He says the permanent banning of Trump was a “morally bad decision”. “Morally”? Trump’s ban after the Jan. 6 insurrection was due to “the risk of further incitement of violence” according to Twitter at the time. When he was on Twitter Trump often used violent rhetoric. After the BLM protests over the murder of George Floyd Trump tweeted: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. In his kiss and tell book former Defense Secretary under Trump, Mark Esper, says the former president suggested shooting racial justice protesters. For now, Trump says he will stay on his own platform. Don’t bet on it!

    –Musk says he is a “free speech absolutist”. Music to your ears. The question is whose speech gets to be free on a Musk Twitter? Tesla is currently being sued for racial discrimination against Black people by the California Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing. The Dept. says in its civil complaint: “Black workers are subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay and promotion, among other violations” The Dept says Tesla “operates a racially segregated workplace”. If Musk thinks content moderation on Twitter is “censorship” what do Black people and other minorities face if Musk takes charge? Before content moderation Black people, especially Black women, were frequently subject to vile and violent racist Tweets. Content moderation changed that. Twitter removed thousands of such tweets. What will happen under Musk’s rule? Most likely racists, who now reside in the dark recesses of the internet, will return to Twitter in droves to spew out their racist venom. Not a good sign.

  6. Senators Collins and Murkowsky are proposing a bill that says states cannot impose an “undue burden” on the ability to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. https://nyti.ms/39UGq60

    Will they agree to suspend the filibuster for their bill? If they do, then it can get a vote, even if Manchin and Sinema don’t agree to suspend the filibuster.

    1. proposing a bill that says states cannot impose an “undue burden” on the ability to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.

      Undue burden and viability. Those terms are not defined in the federal Constitution, The people in States, as represented by their Representative in their respective State Houses, are the only possible way to define those terms.
      If SCOTUS has already ruled, in Roe, and in Casey, the STATES have the power to regulate abortion. As is often pointed out, soon to be 50 years ago. Now Federal Law makers are going to contradict existing law to dictate what States must do?

      1. Your argument is garbage.

        The English language has ~171,000 different words. The US Constitution has less than 4,400 words total, and some (e.g., “and,” “the,” …) are repeated, so the number of distinct words in the Constitution is even smaller. The vast, vast majority of English words don’t appear in the Constitution. The Constitution hardly defines any words (“treason” is one of the few it does define).

        “Separation of church and state,” “Electoral College,” “primary elections,” “judicial review,” “innocent until proven guilty” aren’t in the Constitution either. Are you also going to claim that they have no legal meaning because of that?

        1. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution nor does it explain any constitutional concept. But leftist do believe it does.
          If the electoral college in not in the Constitution, where did it come from?
          Judicial review is an invention of SCOTUS in Marberry.
          Innocent until proven guilty is an explanation of constitutional concepts. “no person shall be denied….”
          You can add to your list, Miranda Rights. Something else legislated from the bench. But, Congress being the spinless parasites they are, prefer to allow SCOTUS do their work so congress doesn’t have hurt any feelings.

          But you ignore the fact, that SCOTUS has already determined Abortion regulations are the domain of States.
          Congress cannot come in and control, that which the constitution leaves to the States.
          Congress tried that in Citizens United and got slapped down…by the Constitution.

          My argument in NOT garbage, I am pointing out, Congress lacks Constitutional enumerated power to regulate abortion. Because the standards they want to employ, are not in the Constitution.

          1. “nor does [Separation of church and state] explain any constitutional concept”

            You apparently believe that, but Justices have used that phrase in rulings.

            You also seem to have missed my point, or else you understood and are trying to deflect.

            “SCOTUS has already determined Abortion regulations are the domain of States.”

            We won’t know what the opinion/concurrence(s)/dissent(s) say until they’re released by the court.

            “Congress lacks Constitutional enumerated power to regulate abortion.”

            That’s your opinion, and we’ll have to wait to see whether the Court agrees.

            1. You apparently believe that, but Justices have used that phrase in rulings.

              You are the one that used the phrase. A favorite of leftist, despite the fact it is NOT a constitutional tenet.

              1. Idiot, my point was that there are all sorts of phrases that aren’t in the Constitution but have legal meanings and are used by SCOTUS and lower courts in their rulings. Your personal belief about it is irrelevant. Read the court rulings.

  7. OT




    Affirmative action is unconstitutional and must be fully abrogated and eliminated.

    It’s merit that matters.

    “Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Michelle Steel, lead amicus brief in support of ending race-based college admissions”

    “Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) led 80 of their congressional colleagues to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in two landmark cases currently before the Supreme Court of the United States. The consolidated cases, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, are set for oral arguments before the Court during the fall term to discuss ending the use of race as a factor in college admissions decisions.”

    “In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, the court held that, in making admissions decisions, colleges and universities may use race as one factor among many, so long as that use is “narrowly tailored” and furthers the compelling interest of obtaining the benefits of a diverse student body. The brief filed by the Members before the Court supports overturning this precedent set forth in Grutter.”

    – Orange County Breeze.com

    1. The Supreme Court must now acknowledge and confess to supreme, colossal failures since 1860 and proceed to finding that the entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional and must be eliminated including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

  8. Who is dumbest? 14 year old child who starts smoking or the parents who let’s him or her get away with it

  9. Americans enjoy the freedom of assembly and speech on public property.

    Local governments enjoy the power to manage, prohibit and preclude disturbances of the peace.

    Americans must maintain their decorum.

  10. P

    Joe Biden

  11. This is NOT a first Amendment case. This is a case of the enforcement of federal law Prohibiting interference and persuasion of the trier of fact or law during the pendency of a judicial proceeding.. It is jury tampering.. The only difference is that the trier of fact is a judge and not a jury, but it is covered in the statute. It is appalling an evidence of corruption that the Department of Justice is not enforcing this law. It opens a can of worms for every trial lawyer in the country. That law professors law license should be jerked as he is promoting the commission of a crime on a widespread basis on a widespread basis.

    1. What case? Has someone been arrested? What were they charged with?

      If you’re only asking hypothetically whether someone protesting outside a Justice’s could be arrested under 18 U.S. Code § 1507 **if** the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person had the requisite intent, yes, that’s possible. But pay attention to need to prove the requisite intent: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
      It’s certainly possible to protest outside a Justice’s home for other reasons.

      1. 18 USC 1507 seems to me to be applicable here. The case has not been decided. The targeted justices are those expected to vote in favour of the Mississippi law, and five of them are expected to vote to overturn Roe/Casey entirely. The chants indicate that the motive is to affect the outcome of the decision, as do other aspects of the demonstrations. I have little doubt that email and social media communications, and text messages, would reveal a great deal of evidence showing this to be the case. There is certainly probable cause to arrest.

        As to the 1st amendment, 1507 does not prohibit speech but merely limits where it can take place. Excluding the homes of justices seems to me a reasonable time, place and manner rule that the 1st amendment permits.

        1. Again: for 1507 to apply, they have to prove the required intent. You haven’t quoted a single thing that you’re taking as evidence (not a chant, not a social media post from someone identified as a protester in front of a Justice’s house, …). I can be convinced with actual evidence, but a bald assertion is unconvincing.

          As for it being a reasonable time, place and manner rule in the absence of the required intent, I doubt it. Even with the intent, Turley has said “While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts,” and he quoted Scalia that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”

          Personally, I don’t believe that any Justice is going to change their mind in response to street protests near their house. If they would, then they shouldn’t be on the Court. On the other hand, I think they should be open to changing their minds in response to good legal arguments, relevant historical evidence, etc.

  12. When, “the mob is right,” that is an incredibly chilling statement.
    Been reading other comments for those calling for violence against the Justices and their families.
    I fear someone is going to do something incredibly stupid, not just “peacefully protest,” but act on those calls for violence.
    And there are those who will cheer it on.

  13. The good professor better hope he doesn’t get what he asks for. He has just invited law abiding, Constitutional advocates, to gather at a federal judges homes in states with constitutional carry laws, to parade in front of their homes, fully armed.

  14. John Locke “The Second Treatise on Civil Government”

    224. “But… hypothesis lays a ferment for frequent rebellion…” ‘First… For when the people are made miserable and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power, cry up their governors as much as you will for sons of Jupiter, let them be sacred and divine, descended or authorized from Heaven; give them out for whom or what you please, the same will happen. The people generally ill-treated, and contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish and seek for the opportunity, which in the change, weakness, and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays long to offer itself. He must have lived but a little while in the world, who has not seen examples of this in his time; and he must have read very little who cannot produce examples of it in all sorts of governments in the world.

    225. Secondly, I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long line of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was first erected , and without which, ancient names and specious forms are so far from being better, that they are much worse than the state of Nature or pure anarchy; the inconveniences being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult. “

  15. One could make a case that the origin of this age of rage was Obama, lacking any criminal charges, placing Muslim American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son by the same name on Obama’s “Kill List” and subsequently incinerating both with separate drone strikes in the ME. Soon after which then-FBI Robert Mueller told Obamy that Obamy could rinse and repeat on US soil at any time he wanted to in the future (again, with American citizens.) Cold blooded 1st degree murder of American citizens, codified into law by the practice of the President.

    At that moment, all bets were off. Americans accepted that they live under an almighty KIng and would love it or risk imminent death. The entire academic community saw this and ate it up, deciding that declaring they could and would demand outright death of their political enemies which we see now on a regular basis.

    Way to go Obamy! Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!

    1. One could also make a case that the origin of this age of rage was the GW Bush Admin, which used and claimed justification for torture.

      1. Anonymous, you and I agree that torture should not be an accepted practice. I also agree that the bombing of abortion clinics was wrong. In turn, you should tell us that you are against the bombing of a pro-life office. I have been willing to wait for the slow grinding process of the law to overturn Roe. Those on the left have no such patience. They would rather see the law torn asunder to satisfy their chosen outcome. They know that if the tearing asunder of the law becomes the norm it may be to their detriment in the future but they say that they will deal with that when the time comes. They believe that if they can obtain total control now it will be centuries before their power is lost because they will be in control of everything the people can hear or see. There is ample evidence that we can see in the world that tells us of the motivations of those who demand more and more centralization of control. Thus centralized control of abortion is only part of the their plan. Doubt it not.

  16. Georgetown Law has “strayed.” It used to be quite a law school.

  17. The same people on this blog that are now calling for the free speech rights of the protestors are willing to justify limiting the speech of those on the right on college campuses. I am waiting for our leftist commentators to call for the reinstatement of Professors who have been fired for voicing their opinion on college campuses. They say that they too are for free speech but they fail to call for a righting of the wrongs. When they say that they too are in favor of free speech I hear only a clanging cymbal in a high hot wind.

    1. Thinkitthrough – some additional irony, those same students who refuse to allow anyone on campus to offer opposing view’s want us all to forgive their debt and pay for their (indoctrination) education. Nice??

      1. You ought to take a course on how to pluralize words without using apostrophes. It’s pretty clear you never ran up any student debt for education, because, being a disciple, you also believe that getting an education is really getting an “indoctrination”. And…who is the “us” being asked to forgive a debt, anyway? Guaranteed student loans are sold off to profiteers who are allowed to compound late fees and interest into principal and then start charging interest and fees on top of the new balance, which grows exponentially, and at a far above average rate of interest. That’s how debt balloons from a few thousand into tens of thousands. Plus, they are allowed to grab the student’s tax refunds ad infinitum to death and only apply the money to late fees and interest, with the principal balance continuing to grow, with no statute of limitations, which prevents former students from buying a home, a good car, taking vacations, etc.. Usually, the debt has been repaid many times over, and the proposals for relief limit the income level for allowance of debt forgiveness, which only starts after several years of making payments.

        1. Natcha,
          The easy fix for student loans is to allow bankruptcy to discharge the debt, and arrange that discharge against the universities that took the tuition.
          This is a mess because the checks and balances of capitalism have been eliminated.

          1. I agree with you, BUT guaranteed student loans are NOT dischargeable in BK. Only non-guaranteed loans are, and these are a very small minority number. Schools push students to go the guaranteed loan route because these are easier to bundle and sell on the secondary debt-buying market because if the student doesn’t pay, the government pays the interest, which is far above the going rate. Also, interest accrues during periods of forebearance–when the student is still taking classes they don’t have to make payments. There is a provision allowing for discharge due to “hardship”, which is so stringent as to be meaningless. There used to be a provision for discharge of student loans if a student agrees to work in poverty situations for a given number of years, like an inner city school or a physician working for a free health clinic or in law enforcement, but DeVos did away with or severely curtailed these. As to hardship, having terminal cancer isn’t reason enough, nor is unemployment or underemployment due to health problems. As I said, they grab tax refunds until death, and there’s no statute of limitations with guaranteed loans. The biggest area for which some relief should be granted is in the area of unaccredited schools that appeal to adults who didn’t get a higher education after high school. For example, you could go to one of these nursing schools, run up debt, only to find out that because the school isn’t accredited, you cannot sit for boards or ever get a nursing license. Accredited schools won’t accept transfer credits, either. You also can’t take bankruptcy. Welcome to a world of lifetime debt and never seeing a tax refund.

Comments are closed.