Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution

Below is my column in the Hill on the call for the use of a federal law to arrest protesters outside of the homes of justices. The crushing irony is that many of these critics have spent years calling for the denial or curtailment of the free speech of others. Yet, these justices being targeted in their homes would likely narrowly construe or bar the use of this law.

Here is the column:

The leaking of a Supreme Court justice’s draft opinion on abortion rights, followed by the “doxing” and targeting of individual justices at their homes, has led to calls for prosecution under a federal law prohibiting “pickets and parades” at the residences of judges or jurors. While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law to arrest protesters would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts.

Ironically, those who are harassing these justices likely would be protected by the very people they are targeting.

Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1507, any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a U.S. court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” will be fined or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

On the key element of location, there is no question that protesters are picketing and parading near the residences of justices. (In one case, though, a protester in prior months thought she was targeting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home but picketed the wrong house; neighbors never told her of her mistake.)

Even after some groups supplied maps and addresses for the justices’ homes, President Biden could not muster the courage to denounce such acts. Days after insisting that the White House took no position on either the leaking of the draft opinion or the doxing of justices, White House press secretary Jen Psaki issued a tepid statement criticizing harassment, vandalism or violence directed at the justices.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also has failed in his leadership of the Justice Department. While Garland was quick to form a national task force to address parents protesting at school board meetings, he has had little to say about the targeting of  justices.

Yet, demands that Garland arrest all of the protesters is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Such prosecutions could create a massive chilling effect on free speech, even if any convictions are unlikely to be upheld. After all, protests are common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation.

Obviously, picketing a justice at home is more direct and threatening, even with security standing outside. Yet, the focus of our laws should not be on the act of protesting but on actual threats or violence committed against justices or their families.

The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. Oliver Wendell Holmes, then a state court justice who later famously joined the U.S. Supreme Court, dissented and rejected the notion that protests “necessarily and always thereby convey a threat of force.”

Even under the vague intent element under the statute, protests are criminal only if they are done with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Certainly, today’s protesters are upset about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and they want to see Roe v. Wade preserved. However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to mob demands. This is unadulterated rage by people who no longer recognize any limits of decency or civility in our political discourse.

If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views. Many wanted to vent their rage directly at justices or use the home protests as a way to make the evening news.

Of course, the Constitution often supports those who would deny such protections to others. Many Democrats and liberal organizations have long advocated for sweeping investigations, criminalization or sanctioning of free speech as well as both state and corporate censorship. At the reported encouragement of Biden administration officials, the National School Boards Association sent a letter calling for a Justice Department task force on threats by parents at school board meetings, despite the small number of such incidents. This included the suggested use of national security offices, which also were referenced in the Justice Department’s press release.

Likewise, many Democrats have sought to bar Republican candidates from election ballots for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or calling for a challenge to the certification of that election. Many of them are still demanding criminal charges against figures like former President Donald Trump for “inciting an insurrection” with his speech on Jan. 6, 2020. And some are using the same kind of overheated language as Trump, such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s tweet: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms … We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Many Democrats also supported sweeping bans on protests near abortion clinics, like a law in Massachusetts that was struck down unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014. In a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared 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.”

The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.

These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Fortunately, for these protesters, the people inside the homes they are targeting will likely protect them from prosecution — because the court will likely follow the lead of Oscar Wilde who said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

553 thoughts on “Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution”

  1. Madame Lt. Governor of Virginia says this:

    ‘Silence doesn’t guarantee safety. The mob may come for you. The Commonwealth Attorney has the power to prosecute the individuals picketing and protesting outside the homes of SCOTUS Justices. The Commonwealth Attorney is supposed to enforce the law.’ @WinsomeSears

  2. Of course Turley is silent when residents of Colorado were greeted by people at their door and steps wearing “badges” and some reportedly armed asking how and whom they voted for. And no, I’m going to do your homework, look it up yourselves.

    1. Not only does Psaki and the Biden admin recklessly encourage protestors to protest wherever and whenever, including AT the HOMES OF JUSTICES, but we also know these most protestors are paid to be there and make noise, get on the news. Who is funding the protests? Where is the money coming from?

      Impeach Merrick Garland now!

      1. I missed Tucker last night–so who is the “WE” who “KNOW” that “MOST” protestors are paid to be there? WHO is paying them, but, more importantly, WHERE’S YOUR PROOF?

      2. Are some of them like some of the Mules from 2000 Mules the same people at the BLM riots?

    2. Anonymous,

      In the the case you cite the person being charged ACTUALLY entered the courtroom. The courtroom is not a constitutionally protected free speech zone. From your link,

      “ Grogan entered the courtroom at about 10:30 a.m., as arguments were under way.”

      The protesters at the justices homes are not interfering what a judicial proceeding.

      1. Recall the unruly protestations going on *inside federal buildings* during the confirmation hearings for SC justices Kavanaugh and ACB? Those were allowed.

            1. Anonymous, yes they were.

              “ At least 227 demonstrators were arrested between the start of the nomination hearings on Tuesday and the end of testimony on Friday, according to the U.S. Capitol Police. Most of those charged this week with disorderly conduct, crowding or obstructing paid fines of $35 or $50.”

      2. The presence of the protestors at the homes of the justices is to intimidate and threaten, instill fear in them for their own safety and the safety of their families, their children, their neighbors. They cannot walk out of their homes without fearing for their safety. Or as Schumer so recklessly put it, so they “won’t know what hit them” if they do not capitulate to the mob. The presence at their homes is itself an implicit threat to their safety. It is wrong. It is illegal. Enforce the damn laws.

    3. The facts here are quite different. The protestor went into the courtroom, disrupted the proceedings by shouting and resisted removal.

    4. Not comparable.

      Grogan was inside the Supreme Court chambers and shouted at the Justices during oral arguments:
      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/texas-man-sentenced-21-days-prison-federal-charge-stemming-disturbance-us-supreme-court
      usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/28/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-protester-rives-grogan/26532887/

      The protesters are not “threatening” the Justices. Anyone who actually threatens a Justice can expect a visit from the US Marshals who protect the Justices and arrest.

      1. A criminal threat is an independent crime.
        most threats are not crimes.

        Schumer’s statement in front of the supreme court during the Kavanaugh hearings was an overt threat.
        It was not a crime.

        The law barring protests at justices homes applies to courthouses – inside and out also.

        1. But the law specifically makes obstruction, trying to influence a decision while justices are in the process of administration of justice. Being at home is not an assumption that they are contemplating or working on the case.

          As Turley explicitly pointed out. It’s the intent behind the protests. They have not violated the law because they are just expressing their anger.

          1. Do you think that it would be acceptable to influence a juror who was not sequested at their home would be legal ?

            What about if they are at the courthouse but in the midst of a lunch break ?

            You may not try to influence a decision while the decision is pending. It is irrelevant if at the moment you are attemption to influence the outcome, the justice is daydreaming about skiing in the alps.

            You left wing nuts are CONSTANTLY trying to get into the mind of others.

            There is no LED on the noggin of a justice that says – do not protest, I am currently deliberating on this case.

            What is wrong with you that you have such abysmal ability to think critically – or even just clearly ?

            This is not difficult.

            I have no idea what you think Turley pointed out, but merely expressing your anger to a person charged with making a decision is attempting to influence that decision.

            We can argue whether this is good law – Turley thinks not. But there is no argument that protestors are violating it.

            Nor is their an argument that this is MORE egregious than J6.

            J6 protestors came to THE #1 location for protest, petitioning government, free speech assembly – which was illegally and unconstitutionally LOCKED. They engaged in legitimate protest.

            It would not matter if they were wrong regarding what they were protesting or wrong about what they wanted – but they were not.

            The 2020 election was lawless, fraudulent and unworthy of trust. Protesters were demanding inquiry into OBVIOUS Fraud that the courts were too cowardly to engage having given their imprimatur to the election lawlessness that enabled it.

            1. John B. Say,

              “ What is wrong with you that you have such abysmal ability to think critically – or even just clearly ?

              This is not difficult.

              I have no idea what you think Turley pointed out, but merely expressing your anger to a person charged with making a decision is attempting to influence that decision.”

              The problem is that you’re the one who is making this difficult. You’re boxing the argument by insisting that any protest is only about influencing a decision. You don’t want to include any other possibility because it undermines your already flawed point of view.

              The law you and others believe is being violated does not apply. You want the law to apply by forcing onto everyone YOUR unequivocal, incontestable definition that all protests are about influencing. Protests by definition are an expression or statement of disapproval or objection to something.

              Lobbying is literally seeking to influence a decision.

              You’re attributing protesting with lobbying which is not what the protesters in front of the justices homes are doing.

              The Jan 6 protesters were indeed intent on influencing a government decision. It was the fact that they forced their way into a secure area and disrupted a government proceeding is exactly what the law you claims applies to the protesters at the justices homes defines as a felony.

              Protesting dissatisfaction with a decision from a public sidewalk is NOT illegal according to 18 usc 1507.

              The Capitol was not illegally and unconstitutionally locked. Congress has jurisdiction in the district and it CAN implement security measures that include locking the building up in the face of possible violence. There is no argument against that.

              1. I am not boxing the argument – it is boxed by reality.

                If you do not have a view to express that you INTEND to convey to others with the expectation of influncing someone

                You do not protest, you do not post here,

                If you do not care, if you do not want things to be different – you do not get off you ass to do anything.

                this is not difficult.

                Further I was mistaken to attribute your failure to lack of critical thinking

                It is more likely willful blindness.

                So Again ALL protest is an effort to CHANGE – INFLUENCE.
                You are the one trying to bend reality to fit your poor argument.

                The BLM protests, the J6 protests, the Kavanaugh protests, Every protest that ever was – is an attempt to influence.

                This is not about “the law” .

                As usually you are trying to FORCE reality to fit your narative.

                Whether there is a law against protesting at judges homes, those protests are an effort to influence.

                Arguably the are MORE than an attempt to influence, they are an attempt to influence through TERROR.

                THAT is a conclusion that can not be established merely because there is protest.
                The less offensive objective of influence is intrinsic to protest,
                While the objective of doing so through Terror – by communicating “We know where you live”,
                is unique to protesting at peoples homes.

                I would further note that as is typical of left wing nuts – you mangle the argument to suite the circumstances.

                As I have noted repeatedly – protest at the capital is LESS offensive than protesting at someones home.

                I would note that left wing nuts go running for emotional support animals and safe spaces whenever a conservative tries to speak at their campus.
                Why ? because they view the mnmere presence of conservative speakers as a THREAT.

                If Ben Shapiro speaking at Berkeley is a threat – then protestors in front of Kavanaugh’s homes are a SERIOUS threat.

                Regardless, if you are not going to make your arguments consistently – then you are a hypocrite and dishonest.

                Your arguments are not worth the effort to read unless they are consistent.

                And those of you on the left are NEVER consistent.

                So let me summarize

                You are wrong because you are quite obviously factually wrong.

                You are also wrong because your claims are at odds with prior claims regarding similar circumstances.

                If you claim “speech is vuiolence” – the protestors at Alito’s home are VOILENT.

                If you claim protestors on J6 were trying to … pretty much anything, over throw the government, undermine the elction, delay certification, …..
                Then Protestors at Alito;s home are trying o overthrow the government, undermine the supreme court, or influence the decsion, ….

                There is no difference between saying “say no to limitations on abortion” and “say no to fraudulent elections”
                Of course the law applies.

                I am not FORCING anything.

                Reality is FORCING.

                This is the BIG place we part company.

                Reality frequently uses force against us. If you build to close to the ocean – a huricane may obliterate your home.

                That is not Racist, It is NOT others applying FORCE to you , it is nature.

                Conversely when YOU directly or through government FORCE me to live as you wish – that is YOU using force.

                This law that you are breaking – that IS govenrment FORCE, it is a violation of liberty. And it applies to you if you protest infront of a judges home – any judge.
                It applies whenever your protest regards an issue even tangential to a decision before tha court.

                If you wish to make the argument that this law is unconstitutional – I do not agree, but you might have an argument.

                But claiming it is not being violated is willful blindness to reality

                One of the reasons your arguments are so poor – is you argue that reality serves you.
                Reality just IS. Yoiur obligated to work with it, if you do not wish to beat your head
                Reality just IS against a brick wall.

                Reality always wins.

                Lobbying is seeking to influence a decision – it is one of many means to try to influence a decision.
                Protest is another.

                Presuming you mean “conflating” rather than attributing – you are incorrect – protest and lobbying are distinct and different.
                But they are both efforts to change someone’s decision.

                Some of the J6 protestors “forced” there way into the pre-eminent Government created public forum.

                The very fact that it was “locked” – was unconstitutional.

                Government may not close down a public forum to prevent speech it does not like.
                Nor may it shuttle it off to an inferior venue to invonvenience protestors or prevent them from being heard.

                The Law you and I are debating prevents protests in front of courthouses too.
                That prohibition is unconstitutional.
                The prohibition against protests in front of a judges homes is NOT.

                Congress – or more specifically the speaker of the house can NOT say – “I do not feel safe in the capital with people protesting – close he capital”
                She can not say that during Kavanaugh protests or during election protests.

                Congress is in session – just about every single clause in the first amendment is violated by locking the capital.

                Congress can act to assure that protests remain peaceful. It can NOT act to prevent them.

                I would remind you of the addage that the 2nd amendment exists for when the first fails.

                Lexington and Concord occured specifically because angry colonists – protesting acts of colonial governent had their voices silenced.

                Read the declaration of independence – there were inumerable examples of – the King shutdown our ability to protest government actions at the proper venue.

                You can preclude protests at private spaces, or at public spaces that are not public forumns – so long as public forums exist.

                You can not preclude protests at public forums. BTW that is decided constitutional law.

                Why do you think the “Unite the right” groups were permitted to protest by the courts – Government can not say NO to protests.

                1. “ I am not boxing the argument – it is boxed by reality.”

                  Yes you are boxing the argument. You’re boxing it into your reality.

                  “ If you do not have a view to express that you INTEND to convey to others with the expectation of influncing someone

                  You do not protest, you do not post here,

                  If you do not care, if you do not want things to be different – you do not get off you ass to do anything.”

                  John, you’re hopelessly stuck on the wrong notion that ALL protesting is seeking to influence.

                  The very definition of “protest” is an objection of something. It’s an EXPRESSION of an opposition to something. You can protest an issued without expecting to influence a change.

                  Flipping off a government official IS A FORM OF PROTEST. How will flipping off a government official influence a decision? What influence is flipping off some government officials going to create?

                  “ The Law you and I are debating prevents protests in front of courthouses too.
                  That prohibition is unconstitutional.
                  The prohibition against protests in front of a judges homes is NOT.”

                  John, you do not understand the law. The majority of those claiming the law applies don’t understand why it doesn’t apply to the protesters.

                  First protesting on a sidewalk in front of a private home is constitutionally protected. That’s not a debate. It’s reality. The Supreme Court itself has validated this multiple times.

                  18 USC 1507 requires that the government PROVE intent to disrupt, influence, interfere, intimidate or thru violence.

                  Peacefully protesting on the sidewalk in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home is NOT illegal according to this law. You can say it’s wrong or unethical, but the constitution and the law do not make it illegal. Protesting is NOT all about influencing. It’s EXPRESSING an objection. This is what these protesters are doing. YOU want to define it as an attempt to influence so the law can be used to arrest them because you don’t like that they are protesting in front of a justice’s home.

                  1. There is only one reality.
                    There are no personal realities.

                    Not a notion.

                    Talk about bogus reframing the argument.

                    It is highly unlikely that protesters WILL influence the justices, something does not have to be likely to be intentional.

                    Svalaz – the law applies to protestors. You lost that argument long ago.
                    I do not think anyone has bought your argument.

                    Turley is not arguing it does not apply.
                    He is arguing it should not apply, or alternately that it is unconstitutional.

                    No protesting on a side walk in front of a private home is NOT constitutionally protected.

                    Noise ordanances are constitutional – END OF DEBATE.
                    Are laws against soliciting on a street unconstitutional ?

                    The first amendment does not prevent any laws regarding public speech.
                    It prohibits all laws that are viewpoint specific. It also prohibits viewpoint specific enforcement of otherwise constitutional laws.

                    PLEASE become familiar with constitutional law.

                    Morse v. Frederick
                    allowed school officials to bar students (over the age of 18) from “protesting” drug laws on public streets outside of school hours.

                    I think it was wrongly decided – but clearly there is no absolute constitional bar on laws against protesting on sidewalks.

                    1. “ Svalaz – the law applies to protestors. You lost that argument long ago.”

                      No John that’s not true.

                      You keep ignoring the text of the law and applying your own interpretation by insisting that ALL protesting is influencing. It is not. The only reason you cling to that flawed reasoning is because it allows you to apply the law against the protesters. It doesn’t work that way. This is where your failure to understand begins.

                      “ No protesting on a side walk in front of a private home is NOT constitutionally protected.”

                      Yes it is John. Because it’s PUBLIC PROPERTY, government property.

                      It can’t be a 24 hr protest or an activity that goes beyond reasonable limits of what would constitute a nuisance. Yes there are limits, but the basic point is still that protesting on public sidewalks and streets. There’s no argument on that.

                    2. You keep pretending you know what I think.

                      You are not clairvoyant.

                      I do not want these protestors arrested.
                      I want them to leave peoples homes alone.

                      I do nto want these protestors to leave judges homes alone.
                      I want ALL protestors to leave EVERYONE’s homes alone.
                      But there is not yet a law for that.

                      There appear to be a small number of counterprotestors out now.

                      They too are violating 18 USC 1507.

                      I do nto care which side of any issue you are on.

                      I support EVERYONE’s right to protest. I think 18 USC 1507 is unconstittutional with regard to banning protests at the supreme court.

                      Your the one whose viewpoints shift with your politics – J6 protests at the pre-eminent public forum – evil. Pro-abortion protests at a justices home – good.

                    3. As I noted before – it is likely NOT public property.

                      Like a typical lefty – you assume that everything everywhere is as it is where you are.

                      Many roads and most sidewalks in residential areas are NOT government property.

                      That is your first problem.

                      The next is that roads and sidewalks are not INTENTIONAL free speech forums.
                      Laws restricting speech are permissible depending on a number of factors.
                      Time and place restrictions are generally accepted for places that are NOT government created public forumns.

                    4. “Yes there are limits”
                      yup, 18 USC 1507.

                      You note you can not be a nusiance – why ? Because there are laws barring that.
                      You note that you can not protest 24×7 – why ? Because there are laws barring that.

                      “Yes it is John. Because it’s PUBLIC PROPERTY, government property.”

                      Are you allowed to protest on the runway of an airport ? in a nuclear submarine ?
                      On Subway tracks ?

                      Just because something is public property does not make it a public forum.

                      The Capital is quite litterally THE pre-eminent public forum in the country.

                      Mall, public squares, public spaces in front of government buildings are all deliberately created public forums.

                      All of these are subject to the greatest freedom of speech. Not unlimited, but very nearly so.

                      Public spaces created for other purposes have lower levels of protection.

                      Public property that is not a public space has the least first amendment protections.

                      I would note that 18 USC 1512 – which is being used to prosecute J6 protestors is even vaguer than 18 USC 1507 and applies as well to protests at Alito’s home

                      And worse still atleast one Judge has already rejected 18 USC 1512 charges as the legislative history – it was passed as part of Sarb-Ox indicates it was to prevent document shredding. Other J6 defendants are challenging it because Congress suspended at 2:26pm and did not recenveince until 9:04 – any defendant who entered after 2:26 and exited before 9:04 could not have obstructed anything.

                      Other defendants are challenging the statute as unconstitutionally vague – courts in the 80’s rejected “corruptly obstructing” the core of the offense as unconstitutionally vague.

                      18 USC 1512 sufferes further problems because as it is applied in the instance of J6 defendants it is being used where 18 USC 1505 and 1507

                      18 USC 1512 has only ever been used for destroying documents intimidating witnesses and false statements.

                      Regardless, my point is that anything that applies to J6 protestors applies even more to Alito protestors.

                      The only difference is that Sidewalks are not a deliberately created forum for public protest, therefore then have LESS free seep protection.

                    5. What is self evident is your and DOJ’s hypocracy.

                      18 USC 1512 – does not apply to the Capital protests – but if it did, it would equally apply to Alito protests.

                      18 USC 1507 does apply to Alito Protests, but does not apply to J6 and is not being prosecuted

                      It is self evident that DOJ and YOU are bending the law to punish those you disagree with while protecting those you agree with.

                      The Rule of law requires the law to be applied the same regardless of whether it is applied to Nazi’s or soccer mom’s.

                      It is self evident they left can not do that., and therefore we are LAWLESS

                      https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/09/the-governments-case-against-many-jan-6-defendants-is-in-legal-jeopardy/

                    6. “t is self evident that DOJ and YOU are bending the law to punish those you disagree with while protecting those you agree with.”

                      That means there is no concern by those in power for the rule of law. Without such concern, we no longer live in the Constitutional Republic created for a free people. The left doesn’t care about the rule of law, so they use criminality to put in place a senile individual as President who is managed by some type of oligarchy. Will the left pay for the lawlessness seen in 2000 Mules? Maybe a few low-lying persons, but as a whole, we are not hearing much about a stolen election, so what we fight for will not exist in the future.

                      The rule of law seems to be disappearing fast, so all those USC numbers you talk about don’t count. They are there only to confuse the voting public and jail those who legally protest such government abuses.

                  2. The elements of 18 USC 1507 are listed in the code.
                    That is what govenrment must prove – to a judge or jury.

                    The standard for arrest is much lower.

                    Regardless, this is a federal law, and the FBI is supposed to enforce it.

                    All govenrment employees – including the FBI, DOJ and AG are sworn to uphold the law.
                    They do not have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional so they must enforce it – just as they must enforce immigration laws.
                    Even though they do not.

                    If the courts find this unconstitutional which is highly unlikely, so be it.

                    In the meantime you are throwing spaghetti at the fridge hoping it will stick.

                  3. “Peacefully protesting on the sidewalk in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home is NOT illegal according to this law.”
                    Bzzt, wrong – BOTH are.

                    Not only are you wrong – but plenty on the left are very concerned that after Rowe falls that the right is going to arrest protestors for violating the law.

                    I am not sure how that happens – Rowe will be decided in the next couple of weeks and AG Garland shows zero interest in enforcing the law.

                    I would also note how looney the left is.

                    Parents at school board meetings (actual public free speech forum) protesting what teachers teach their kids – are right wing white supremecist domestic terrorists threat tagged by the FBI – even if they are not white
                    But abortion protstors calling Kavanaugh a rapist in front of his kids – their OK for you ?

                  4. I would note that by your definiton the J6 protestors are even more innocent.

                    They just went to congress to flip the bird.

                2. Your argument about reality is flawed because you don’t apply it yourself. For example you state,

                  “ If you claim protestors on J6 were trying to … pretty much anything, over throw the government, undermine the elction, delay certification, …..
                  Then Protestors at Alito;s home are trying o overthrow the government, undermine the supreme court, or influence the decsion, ….”

                  You make a clearly false equivalency here. The j6 rioters were not peacefully protesting. They were intent on violence and obstruction of a government proceeding. Obviously video evidence of that cannot be denied. They broke thru barriers and beat up law enforcement officers in order to gain access to a restricted area. The protesters at Alito’s house have been peaceful, no violence has erupted, and no obstruction has occurred. They have stayed within constitutionally protected free speech forums of public sidewalks and streets.

                  Protesting in front of Alito’s home is seeking to overthrow the government. The reality is your are boxing reality into your own version from true reality.

                  1. Nope the equivalence is excellent.

                    You are just misunderstanding.

                    What I was saying is that any evidence YOU have that the J6 protestors were engaged in something YOU think is impermissible, is also true of Draft Alito protestors.

                    J6 protestors were not trying to overthrow the govenrment.
                    Nor are Draft Alito protestors.

                    But whatever evidence you think you have regarding the alleged criminal intentions of J6 protestors also exists regarding Draft Alito protestors.

                    I would note that some of the chants by protestors or their comments to news castors are roughtly “no justice no peace”.
                    While I have argues that all protest reflects an intention for change – these protestors have made that exlict

                    Just one example – “If we do not have the right to an abortion you do not get to eat sunday night dinner at home in peace”

                    That is an explicit effort to influence a pending court decision.

                  2. “Protesting in front of Alito’s home is seeking to overthrow the government. ”
                    Make an argument that the J6 protestors sought to overthrow the government and I will use your same argument to demonstrate that the Protestors at Alitos seek to overthrow the government.

                    You really missed the equivalence.

                    The Point is that you ASSUME the one protest is legitmate and you ASSUME the other is not.
                    But almost any argument you make about one applies to the other.

                    The fundimental difference being J6 protestors were EXPLICITLY petitioning government – another first amendment right, at the CAPITAL, the pre-eminent first amendment location in the nation, and the Alito protestors are NOT.

                    1. Dealing with Svelaz on any intellectual matter is like dealing with Bullwinkle from Fractured Fairy Tales. He can write a response that has sentences that conflict with one another, and he is DDB (deaf, Dumb and Blind), unable to recognize the conflicts.

              2. No congress can not do whatever it please.
                ,
                I would strongly suggest you look up case law on this.

                Government – not merely congress, can not thwart the excercise of free speech, free assembly, petitioning government.
                You can request a permit to march on the capital and it can not be denied.

                The capital i the most consequential public forum int he US. It is a government created forum, and one of the purposes of that forum is explicity to criticize and petition government.

                I wouild note that the J6 protestors had a permit, – the government can not actually deny a permit. Further that permit explicitly noted that protestors might be marching to the capital.

                Pelosi had advance warning that there would be a protest at the capital and she closed the capital to prevent – that is about as egregious a violation of the firts amendment as you can get.

                Protestors in front of Alito’s house have no permit – nor is government required to issue a permit for a space that is NOT a pubic forum.

                You can not as an example ask for a permit to march down and interstate.
                Further congress was in session – the activities of the legislation with the limited exception of a few national security measures take place in PUBLIC.

                We do not have a secret star chamber government. The executive branch which merely impliments the laws can to some extent act in private.
                Though even then regultory actions – the making ad enforcing the law take place in public. Just as our courts must ACT in public. Deliberations can occur in proviate but all ACTS of government are public.

                Courts can only very rarely hear witnesses in private. The president can not sign laws in private.

                Congress can not vote, pass legislation in private. It can only rarely hold hearings in private.

                This of critical importance. Our government belongs to the people.

                We do not elect representatives to act in secret. They are PUBLICLY accountable.

                When government starts acting in secret – there WILL be an insurection.

                1. “ I wouild note that the J6 protestors had a permit, – the government can not actually deny a permit. Further that permit explicitly noted that protestors might be marching to the capital.”

                  No the permit did NOT allow a March towards the Capitol.

                  “ Government – not merely congress, can not thwart the excercise of free speech, free assembly, petitioning government.”

                  It cannot thwart the exercise of free speech but it CAN limit it to time and place hence the permit. It sets parameters.

                  John, the j6 rioters stormed the Capitol intent on disrupting a legitimate congressional proceeding. It was illegal. Trespassing on Capitol grounds is a crime when it’s not authorized. You can’t simply walk to the chamber floor and protest. Just like every right there are limits

                  1. With very few exceptions permits MUST be granted.

                    The permitting process can not be used by government to prevent a protest they do not like.

                    In fact there is caselaw that every single reasont hat permits are allowed, upltimately can not be used to deny a permit or to stop a protest.

                    Government is allowed to ask for proof of insurance in a permit request.
                    But it can not deny a permit for lack of insurance.

                    Govenrment is allot to require a permit in order to get prior notice.
                    But even when a protest occurs without a permit, there is generally nothing government can do.

                    As to J6 they requested and received a permit for a large scale protest on the mall, with a provision that some at the protest would go to the capital afterword.

                    In fact as I research this further numerous permits were issued to various different protest groups on J6 – several of which were explictily for protests on the capital grounds.

                    In fact several LEFT wing sites are making idiotic claims that the permit requests were fraudulent or in accurately state some information.
                    False and irrelevant.

                    Protest permits are by massive amounts of constitutional law MUST ISSUE, The government is allowed to request lots of information,
                    and I can probably deny you a permit if you openly state you intent to commit crimes. But beyond that there is little they can do.

                    Among the few reasons they can deny a permit – is because someone else already has a permit to protest at the same place and time.

                    The Government is not required to make a public forum that only accomodates 500 people fit 50,000.

                    The government can not even stop you from protesting at a government created public forum if you do not have a permit – though they can probably separate you from groups that do.

                    From what I can tell there were more than half a dozen permits issued for J6 – some for the elipse, most for several small groups AT THE CAPITAL

                  2. The protestors in front of KAvanaugh’s house are intent on disrupting a legitimat supreme court decision,
                    the KAvanaugh confirmation protestors were intent on disrupting a legitimate senate proceding.

                    You constantly use broad words pretending the have narrow meanings.

                    What does disrupt mean ?

                    Did the J6 protestors hope their protests might change the vote to certify ? Absolutely – that is legal.

                    There is no instance of Violence on J6 that is not effort by protestors to get to where they could legitimately protest.

                    You can claim they should not have broken doors down – fair enough – but the doors should not have been locked.

                    You can not claim the protestors came with the intent of doing Violence to stop certification. There is no actual evidence of that.
                    You have no idea what they would have done had they been permitted their constitutional right to protest, and petition government.

                    I would specifically note – I ALWAYS try to cite the constitutional right to PETITION GOVERNMENT.

                    It is IN ADDITON to the right to assemble and speak freely. It is also important for two reasons – that was the CLEARLY EXPRESSED intention of protestors – to ask – even demand congress delay certification and audit the election.
                    Whether you like it or not – that is a perfectly legal request or PETITION.

                    And you petition Congress AT THE CAPITAL.

                    This is not merely about protest.
                    You can argue that the Kavanaugh protests were petitioning government, or that the Alito protests are.
                    That is less clear – they are NOT making a clear specific ask of Congress.

                    There is LOTS of documentation – including Trump’s speech that protestors were going to the capital to demand that congress delay certification.

                    They had the right to speak for that purpose.
                    They had the right to assemble for that purpose.
                    and they had the right to petition government – specifically congress AT THE CAPITAL for that purpose.

                    1. “ What does disrupt mean ?

                      interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

                      Did the J6 protestors hope their protests might change the vote to certify ? They were not seeking to change the vote. They were intent on interrupting the vote to allow trump to convince state legislatures to nullify their certifications.

                      “ You can not claim the protestors came with the intent of doing Violence to stop certification. There is no actual evidence of that.”

                      Yes there is evidence. In fact the whole country saw it live on TV.

                      There have already been convictions associated with violence and confessions of forcing thru violence a change of the votes.

                      It’s not even a debate. The rioters were indeed doing violence to stop the certification John. You’re being willfully ignorant and quite stupid in asserting such a claim. There’s hours of video and confessions from stupid rioters taking selfies admitting that it IS their intent.

                      The Jan 6 protesters were not allowed to March to the Capitol. Look at page 12 of the official permit filed for the Jan 6 rally.

                      “Are you planning to March? They put down “No March”.

                      https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21059849/leopold-capitol-police-protest-permits-january-6-common-law-release.pdf

                    2. The Alito protestors admit they are trying to interupt, disrupt his sunday dinner.

                      With respect to J6 protestors, The constitution delegates the power to certify to congress.
                      They can certify, delay, delegate to a commision, even do nothing.

                      You are not doing anything illegal when you seek to get congress to do what it is free to do.

                      You are hover incorrect regarding the intentions of J6 proteestors.
                      Why should that suprise me – you never actually know anything about the people you attack.

                      Regardless, the J6 protestors sought to have congress delay certification for 10 days and to order an audit to be completed in that time.
                      If you bother there is LOTS of evidence that was their objective.
                      Several State legislatures had already voted for their own slate of electors.

                      Go away until you can make an argument that is not hypocracy.

                    3. If you had the slightest familliarity with criminal justice you would know that guilty pleas are worthless.

                      Every or nearly every single person on the innocence projects list of Exonerated people – these are people convicted of serious crimes, who were subsequently PROVEN innocent – not relased on technicalituies, not even released for insufficient evidence. or because a witness recanted. But PROVEN innocent. Nearly every single one confessed.

                      The vast majority of people will confess to something they did not do subject to a typical police interogation for about 18 hours.
                      Almost everyone will do so under longer durress. Yet, very few of the J6 defendants have confessed or plead – even after 18months in hell hole conditions.

                      Your argument works AGAINST you.

                      Next never ever rely on any aspect of a guilty plea that is not an independently established FACT.

                      Another example – 6 people were prosecuted for the Whitmer Kidnapping.
                      1 Pleade guilty quickly and testified for the prosecution.
                      ! plead guilty just before trial
                      of the remaining 4 – 2 were flat out acquitted at trial, and 2 were not convicted.

                      It is not possible that the 2 who were acquited were innocent and the two who plead were guilty.

                      Even Jury verdicts from DC are meaningless.

                      You want to persuade me – do so with evidence – not appeals to authority, and not through coerced statements.

                    4. Svelaz – there are SEVERAL permits – including ones explicitly for JUST the CAPITAL.

                      You are doing as you always do and as many left sites do and misunderstanding how permits work, and cherry picking.

                      Permits are MUST ISSUE, there are almost no allowed reason to deny.
                      Even without a permit, government can not block protest.
                      But there are plenty of permits related to J6 that indicate there will be a march to the capital.
                      A permit would not have been necescary. But they got one anyway

                      There are also left wing nut sites that try to make hay out of claims that the permits were for 700 people or for 50 people.

                      That is not how permits work.

                      It is unlikely that Alito protestors have a permit – or would be granted one.

                      And if you just show up infront of the supreme court – in the thousands – you are free to protest.

                      The fact that permits exist indicating that there would be a march to the capital AND separate permitted protests at the capital
                      is important in only one way.

                      The capitol police KNEW they were coming – and violated their rights anyway.
                      The lockdown of the capital was DELIBERATE violation of the constitutional rights of protestors.

                  3. Absolutely congress and the capital police can place SOME limitations on first amendment protests, petitioning government etc.

                    The extent of allowed limits is by far the greatest at public spaces that are NOT public forums.
                    And the least at those that are. Petitioning government can not be prohibited at the seat of government.
                    You petition the Burea of Indian Affairs at the BIA – or the capital.
                    You petition congress AT THE CAPITAL.

                    The capital can be locked when Congress is not in session – even if many congressmen are there – but they can not lock the congress while conducting hearings, or voting or when congress is graveled into session.
                    They can absolutely bar any first amendment activities inside the capital – when congress is not in session.
                    But not when it is.

                    They can limit the numbers that enter the capital – thought those limits have to be consistent with the public capacity of the capital.

                    They can not say that on J6 – only 50 people can enter.

                    They can (and do) search people for weapons. They even have rules for the size of the sticks that can be used to hold up placards.

                    Congress can not make a law that says peititioning govenrment must be done in writing 90 days in advance or that a protest seeking to influence congress must take place in Utah.

                    Most of what I am saying there is already clear constitutional caselaw on.

                    As I noted before many left wing nut blogs are fixating on the information that is in the permit applications.

                    Failing to grasp that constitutionally protest permits are very very close to MUST ISSUE.
                    The courts have allowed government to make all kinds of demands on permit applications.
                    But deprived government the power to enforce them.

                    Even the demand that groups must get a permit is actually constitutionally unenforceable – and there is caselaw on that.

          2. Lets be clear ALL protest is an attempt to influence. All expressions of anger are attempts to influence.

            There is not question at all that these protests are an attempt to influence.

            But there is nothing wrong with attempting to influence those in government.

            This is part of what is wrong with many of the J6 charges – if the alleged crimes are not facially unconstitutional – they are unconstitutional as applied. It is ALWAYS allowable to try to influence government.

            You and Anonymous keep trying to argue intent – all protest demonstrates the intent to influence.
            Making an intent to influence illegal would violate the first amendment.

            Content or viewpoint restrictions on free speech are nearly always unconstitutional.

            But Time and place restrictions are less likely to be unconstitutional.

            On J6 they protested in the most recognized forum for free speech in existence.

            Current protesters are doing so at private homes, in private neighborhoods in places that are NOT recognized as free speech forums.

            1. Tell me, John, was the 2017 March for Science in DC a “protest,” and if so, who was it trying to influence and towards what ends?

              1. Do you really think that is a difficult question ?

                google it – the march for science protestors will tell you exactly what their message was and who they wanted to persuade.

                Why are we debating the obvious ?

                You seem to think that if a protest has the intention of influencing anyone that is a bad thing. It is not. All protests are attempts to influence.

                1. I attended that march. I wasn’t there to influence anyone. I am a counterexample to your claim. You beg the question by assuming things that need to be proved.

                  You seem to get off on projecting beliefs onto me that aren’t mine.

                  1. You attended the march. Prima fascia you were there to influence.

                    There is no other purpose to a protest than to influence.

                    There is nothing wrong with that.

                    But you keep trying to argue stupidity.

                    Gravity is real, the sun will rise tomorow, and protest is an effort to influence.

                    1. You’re willfully ignorant if you believe “There is no other purpose to a protest than to influence.”

                    2. Svelaz has been trying for days to find an example and has not yet.

                      Again people who do not expect change – now or later do not protest.

                    3. I’m already gave you an example. In response, you pretended to know my intent better than I do — prima facie evidence that you’re not a good-faith discussant.

                    4. Nope. All I claimed is that Protest is intentional.

                      You used your own conduct as an counter example – on that failed.

                      Protest is intentional.

                      I have asked YOU for examples or non-intentional protest.
                      The very few you provided were obviously intentional.

                      Evidence of Your Bad Faith ? Or poor reasoning skills. One or the other.

                    5. Anonymous, if protest were not your intent, what were you there for? You could be a reporter, trying to score some drugs, pick up a girl, or other things. That makes you sound foolish. Protest intends to influence. If you choose one of the others, you prove your bad faith.

                    6. John, you’re lying when you say “All I claimed is that Protest is intentional.

                      What you actually claimed — and what I provided counterevidence to — was “All protests are attempts to influence.”

                      To be clear: “is intentional” is not a synonym for “are attempts to influence.” These have different truth-values.

                      Your new claim, “Protest is intentional,” is true. But your original claim, “All protests are attempts to influence,” is false.

                      “Evidence of Your Bad Faith ? Or poor reasoning skills. One or the other.”

                      No, just another example of you claiming a false dichotomy, when it’s actually evidence of you moving the goalposts from your false claim that “All protests are attempts to influence.”

                    7. Can you please quit calling disagreements – especially your versions of what I say lies.

                      You do not seem to know what an actual lie is
                      And by making overly broad claims as to what is a lie – you diminish the meaning of lie.
                      As you have done with other terms like racist, white supremecist, trans phobe ….

                      1984 was NOT supposed to be an instruction manual.

                      “All protests are attempts to influence.”
                      I can accept that. And you have not provided counter evidence to that.

                      18 USC 1507
                      “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent 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.”

                      The Alito protestors meet that standard.

                      Why you want to argue this point is beyond me. It is a loser.
                      The strongest argument is that the law as applied is unconstitutional. You will lose that too – atleast with residences. The law is unconstitutional with respect to court houses.

                      You have not addressed your most significant flaw – you are being hypocritical

                      “To be clear: “is intentional” is not a synonym for “are attempts to influence.” These have different truth-values.”
                      Correct, but it is a very small step from one to the other.

                      Assuming that you accept that all protest is intentional – what is the intent ? To waste time in front of Alito’s house.

                      “The demonstration — dubbed a “Vigil for Abortion Rights” — was organized by activist group Shut Down D.C., which said it would take its protests directly to the justice’s house in Northern Virginia “because it’s been impossible to reach him at the Supreme Court.””

                      Pretty clear statement that Vigil for Abortion Rights protest is:
                      Intentional,
                      That it is intentional with respect to Alito.

                      One of the chants is:
                      “if we don’t get it [justice] shut it down”
                      Pretty clear intent to influence.

                      If it makes you feel any better counterprotestors are equally violating the law.

                    8. “No, just another example of you claiming a false dichotomy,”
                      Nope – nor do I think you know what that means.

                      “when it’s actually evidence of you moving the goalposts from your false claim that “All protests are attempts to influence.”
                      No goalpost moving.

                      I am sorry that it bothers you that I do not use precisely the same words everytime I state something.
                      It is NOT Goalpost moving to phrase something slightly different when the meanings are close.

                      Regardless, “All protests are attempts to influence.”
                      Is correct, and you have not refuted it.

                      I have provided CLEAR evidence these protests are attempts to influence.
                      However just because a protest is not explicit in its demands, does not mean it is not an attempt to influence.

                      People may protest with the expectation of failure.
                      Or more accurately with the hope of persuading others if directly persuading the target does not work.
                      But no one protests who does not seek change.
                      Portest is a demand for change.

              2. This is not a difficult or partisan question.
                It is not a question of good and evil.

                It is just about an obvious fact that is not normally politically loaded.

                You are practically trying to debate whether the earth orbits the sun.
                And pretend the answer is political.

                Just accept the obvious

                1. John, no it’s not “obvious”. You’re trying to assert something that is not true, not even by definition.

                  A protest is not always an attempt at influence as you claim. The very nature of a protest is to express dissatisfaction with a current view of policy. THAT’S what is obvious.

                  Look at the George Floyd protests. They were expressing their anger at the lack of accountability of police for abuses of their authority. Shouting disapproval and slogans rallying against such abuse is not influencing as you content. You’re applying a very veeeery broad definition to the act of protesting just so you can apply the law in question, 18 USC 1507.

                  What most righties here really want by claiming this law is being violated is retribution for “harassing” these judges at their homes despite the fact that it is indeed protected free speech. They don’t like the idea that it’s happening in front of their homes. That somehow it’s just wrong because it’s somehow an invasion of privacy.

                  Nobody has a right not to be annoyed, including Supreme Court justices. Looking for an excuse to arrest people for exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest because it seems wrong is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the most basic principles of freedom of speech and it’s consequences for exercising it.

                  1. When you say it is “not obvious:” – all you are doing is demonstrating an inability to reason, to use logic.

                    Yes it is obvious.

                    Al protest is intentional, and it is all an effort to persuade to inffluence.

                    You keep trying to hypothesis this mythical protest thatr people participate in where they do not care about anything and have no reason to be there.

                    That is typical leftist nonsense – it is not the real world. It is not even a hypothesis consistent with the real world.

                    Constantly those of you on the left make assertiosn that are obviously wrong in the real world.

                    You can concoct imaginary worlds where post modernism works, where contradictions do not exist, where ideas hat can not work in this world actually work.
                    But those worlds are not real, nor can they be real.

                    Dis satisfaction with things as they are is a plea or demand for change.

                    The george Flyod riots pressed MANY demands. The conviction of Chauvin, defunding police, and on and on and on.

                    Yes, angrily shouting that as things are they are wrong is ABSOLUTELY a demand for change.

                    The fact that people are not happy means they want change.

                    No I am not applying a broad defition of protesting.

                    Even if in some hypothetical world – certainly not this one. People would occasionally be inspired to protest while not wanting ANYTHING to change – which is on its face absurd,

                    That would nto alter the fact that most protest would still be a demand for change.

                    Thj protestors in front of Alito’s home are angry about what Alito is doing, they do not want him to do that, it is why they are there.

                    Just as Schumer said in words – there will be a price to pay. They are saying the same in words and actions.

                    One of the most famous protest slogans is “no justice no peace”

                    All protest is there will be no peace if our anger is not molified.

                    We may not get what we want – but you will have to face an angry mob.

                    Nor does my claim regarding protest have anything to do with the law that is clearly being violated.

                    Your dispute with me is over your unreal understanding of protest.

                    I would note – you used the words harrassment – I did not. Regardless, by using those words you cede the point.

                    Harssas – to worry or impeded, to repeatedly annoy – “No right to abortion, no peace” – an attempt to influence.

                    This is not a “righty” thing. Ia m still not a righty.

                    Nor is this protected free speech.

                    As we have gone over and over and over.

                    The capital is a government created public fourm. Very very few limits on speech are allowed there.

                    Even a public street in front of a private home is NOT a public forum.

                    You are not free to protest on an interstate.
                    Laws that bar you from doing so are constitutional.

                    You must be allowed to protest in the capital when government is acting, restricting that by law or action is unconstitutional.

                    My problem with the statute being used here is that it is too narrow.

                    it is probably improper to protect ONLY judges in their homes.

                    There is no right to free speech on anothers property.

                    There is not a general right to free speech on public property that is not a public forum.
                    It would be unconstitutional to fail to provide a public forum – which is why though this statute bars protest in front of a courthouse,
                    that portion of the law is unconstitutional.

                    There is no more appropriate place to protest actions of the court than in front of the courthouse.

                    You lefties constantly rant about safe spaces. The world is not a safe space from speech you do not like.
                    Your college campus is not. Lecture halls are not, actual public forums are not.

                    Your home is a safe space from speech you do not like.
                    Your Dorm is.

                    All of this is quite simple
                    And if you are clueless, there is plenty of first amendment law that you can review.

                    1. “ Al protest is intentional, and it is all an effort to persuade to inffluence.”

                      No John. You’re still incredibly wrong. Here you’re twisting around the basic truth that you cannot bring yourself to admit. The very definition of the word “protest” is about an expression. Not at a demand. You want to conflate protesting with influence despite the fact that they are not the sand thing. You are forcing others into your own flawed view that ALL protesting is about influencing and that’s categorically not true. You’re being willfully ignorant.

                      “ My problem with the statute being used here is that it is too narrow.

                      it is probably improper to protect ONLY judges in their homes.

                      There is no right to free speech on anothers property.”

                      Well John you’re the one who is often a big proponent of narrow interpretations of the law and here you are objecting to a narrow interpretation because it goes against your personal views on the matter and it’s an inconvenient reality.

                      You want statutes to be narrow and specific precisely because they leave no room for ambiguity which is what textualists like yourself always argue is the correct way to read the law.

                      The protesters at the justices homes are allowed to protest as long as they are on public sidewalks and streets. You keep ignoring this obvious fact in your arguments. Even Turley grudgingly admits the protesters are legally exercising their free speech rights.

                      “ Your home is a safe space from speech you do not like.”

                      Yes it is and that stops where public property begins. You are not protected from the speech happening just outside your home on public property. You can shut the windows and blinds or stay within the walls of your mansion and still be safe from free speech you don’t like. That doesn’t mean protesters can be protesting all night and day and be so loud and obnoxious that it becomes a nuisance issue. The protesters at the justices homes have not been like that and that’s why the government has no power to stop them. Especially by using 18 USC 1507.

                      “There is not a general right to free speech on public property that is not a public forum.“

                      Yes there is. The constitution does not say where free speech is allowed or not. A sidewalk or street can indeed be deemed a public forum. If a permit to protest is granted and includes streets it is certainly a public forum. A street becomes a public forum when protesters converge on a street. It’s public property. Just like the truckers who blocked roads in protest of vaccine requirements. It became a public forum. I

                      What you are not getting is the simple fact that protesters ARE legally allowed to protest in front of a private residence while on PUBLIC PROPERTY (sidewalks and streets). The 1st amendment does NOT protect anyone from being annoyed. There’s no such right.

                      YOU want to define when and where protesting can occur when it suits YOUR views not with what the law says.

                    2. ” The very definition of the word “protest” is about an expression. Not at a demand.”

                      Nope. When I create a work of art – that is expression. When I tell my wife I love her – that is expression.

                      When I picket the courthouse – that is a demand. It may be a demand I never expect to get fullfilled

                      Regardless, a flash mob did not show up at alito’s house to do interpretive dance based on some broadway number.

                      I would further note the protestors are getting interviewed and recorded.
                      They have made it clear – even by YOUR izarre definition – they are there to INFLUENCE.

                      You do this all the time – you try to apply arcane meaning to clauses in laws to get the outcome you want.

                      I have not heard a single utterance made by J6 protestors that exceeded the current SCOTUS standards for protected speech.

                      The most recent SCOTUS free speech case found a man who threatened his wife and the police with violence on facebook to be protected speech Myriads of violent remarks of waters or pelosi or Obama, or Schumer are all protected speech.
                      As is the Speech of TRump and his supporters.

                      You may not like it – but it is speech.

                      Just as the pro-abortion protestors it is uttered with the intention of demanding some change
                      again PROTECTED SPEECH.

                    3. We have been debating this for days – and STILL the J6 protestors come out of the debate better – with more protected first amendment expression than abortion protesters.

                      I could be nice and cede you some ground – just to be polite – but doing so would make YOUR arguments against J6 protestors even weaker.

                      While some aspects of this debate have been interesting – briefly.
                      It is not particularly interesting to have you repeat the same poor arguments over and over as if beating a dead horse one more time will bring it to life.

                      But the big issue is that you are obviously a hypocrite.

                      Your position on the legitimacy and particularly the legality of the actions of J6 protestors is based on you politics and ideology – not the constitution, not rights.
                      Your position on the legitimacy and particularly the legality of the actions of pro-abortion protestors is based on you politics and ideology – not the constitution, not rights.

                      Your do not even make incorrect arguments consistently.

                      You have tried to redefine protest a millions ways in the hopes of avoiding intentionality. And failed.
                      But if you ever succeeded – any success would apply to J6 protetors as well.

                      And you are blind to that.

                      That is massive hypocracy.

                      I do not treat most of your argument seriously – because hypocracy is by defintion bad faith.
                      Because aside from making poor arguments – you are not trustworthy.
                      You are not even honest with yourself.

                    4. Please familiarize yourself with probably hundreds of cases on exactly these topics – not just cherry pick bits out of one – but myriads of them.

                      It is near certian that my arguments do not perfectly reflect every nuance of the current state of First amendment law – though you have not identified any error.

                      Regardless, you are off in left field.

                      Saying something stupid over and over does not make it so.

                      Different places have different degrees of first amendment protection.

                      In front of Alito’s home is very nearly the least protected public space.
                      At the capital is the MOST protected public space.

                  2. Actually you absolutely have the right not to be annoyed – in your home.

                    Whether you like it or not there is no first amendment rights at all in someone else’s property.

                    The first amendment is completely about when the GOVERNMENT can restrict speech on GOVERNMENT property.

                    And you are correct that there is an absolute right to protest – whether you are a J6 protestor, or protesting against Alito’s draft.

                    That right is near absolute – in a governrment created public Forum – such as the front of the supreme court, or the Capital.
                    It is non-existant on private property, and its strength is variable in between.

                    1. “ The first amendment is completely about when the GOVERNMENT can restrict speech on GOVERNMENT property.”

                      Streets and sidewalks ARE government property. Protesting on a public street or sidewalk across from a private residence IS legal.

                      A specific government created forum is not always required in order to exercise free speech. You can protest on a street corner all you want. Even if it’s just one person holding a sign or speaking. Even the Supreme Court recognizes that public sidewalks

                      Traditional public forums include public parks, sidewalks and areas that have been traditionally open to political speech and debate. Even streets.

                      Justice Owen J. Roberts’s opinion in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), in which he wrote: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.”

                      This is why it’s permissible to protest in front of justice Alito’s home.

                    2. “Streets and sidewalks ARE government property. Protesting on a public street or sidewalk across from a private residence IS legal.”

                      That varies. Streets are more likely to be public property. Sidewalks in front of commercial locations in the city usually are public property.

                      But it is NOT a rule of thumb that sidewalks and streets are public property.

                      Many developments have public roads that are not public property.

                      I own an apartment building in a nearby city – I own the sidewalks. My right to control them is limited, But they are still my property – not the cities, and the city goes out of their way to make that clear.

                      If they are damaged – I must repair or replace them. If it snows – I must clear the snow. If someone trips and hurts themselves – I will be sued.

                      I can not be sued for what happens on public property.

                      Out in the suburbs, quite often there are roads and sidewalks and still not a government owned peice of property for a long distance.

                      You constantly make assumptions in what you post that MIGHT be true some places, SOMETIMES are true many or most places,
                      but almost never are universally true.

                      One thing I learned in HS footbal – do not assume – it makes an “ASS out of yoU and ME”

                    3. With respect to Haugue

                      Have I ever argued that speech on public sidewalks is not protected ?

                      You do not seem to be able to read.

                      I have said that Speech is NEVER absolutely protected.
                      But it is most nearly absolutely protected – at the capital, and then public forms intentionally created for free speech
                      And THEN places like Sidewalks.

                      I have already noted – OVER AND OVER that we already have many laws that abridge free speach on sidewalks – do noise ordinances – not ply on sidewalks ?

                      There is no question that govenrment can make laws regulating speech on Sidewalks.

                      The only question is whether 18 USC 1507 goes beyond the limitations on free speech that the constitution permits on sidewalks.

                      You have hemmed and hawed and ranted and raved, but you have not demonstrated that 18 USC 1507 is unconstitutional.
                      I do not recall Turley doing so either. Though he has argued that it SHOULD be constitutional.
                      With respect to places other than infront of judges homes – I agree.

                      But even that said – 18 USC 1507 is good law, and must be enforced. Just like immigration laws.

                      If you do not like that – change the law. I will join you on the parts covering ocurthouses.

                  3. Only the left seeks to treat people differently based on their views.

                    If the J6 protestors had done so in front of senators and congressmen’s homes – that could be made a crime – but the left does that all the time.
                    If the J6 protestors had followed senators into resturaunts to protest – that probably already is a crime.

                    When Kavanaugh protestors raided the capital – the only crime was their acts of violence. Not their protests that disrupted congressional proceedings.
                    Protesting in the capital is the highest form of protected speech.

                    Protesting in front of someones home is not

            2. “Let’s be clear ALL protest is an attempt to influence. All expressions of anger are attempts to influence.

              There is no question at all that these protests are an attempt to influence.”

              No, again, you’re unequivocally wrong here. As I stated the literal definition of protest is expressing an objection to something. It does not even imply that it is influence.

              Lobbying is the act of influencing an individual. You wouldn’t call lobbyists protesters, would you? Because according to you all protesting is seeking to influence. You like to apply definitions that are contradictory to the actual definition so you can square your arguments as “reasoned”. You’re making the same flawed argument S. Meyer tried to use when claiming “accurate” is synonymous with “excellent”. Yours is just as bad. This is why most of your arguments don’t hold water when properly scrutinized.

              “ Current protesters are doing so at private homes, in private neighborhoods in places that are NOT recognized as free speech forums.”

              Wrong. They are on public sidewalks which are recognized by the Supreme Court as free speech forums. Sidewalks are not private in their neighborhood. This is why Turley grudgingly acknowledges that the protesters are legally allowed to be there. He doesn’t think it’s right, but it IS a constitutionally protected activity and doesn’t violate 18 USC 1507.

              1. “You’re making the same flawed argument S. Meyer tried to use when claiming “accurate” is synonymous with “excellent”.

                The discussion was whether a textbook on the history of the US was an excellent book or not. I claimed the book could not be an excellent textbook because the writer wasn’t accurate. Svelaz then equated the two as synonymous.

                Below is one of the emails.


                You are an absolute dummy. I will quote the author: “Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States – an excellent text” If it is an excellent text, then it is accurate or reasonably so.

                You are unable to incorporate what you read. Your mind is perverted. To you, an excellent textbook is an inaccurate one. That is why you are worthless to discuss anything with.

                You make up things like you did with Robert Moses and everything else. You even argue about a person’s credentials. When the actual author says he doesn’t have his Ph.D., you argue that is not true. One can only laugh at your foolishness.

                1. S. Meyer, LOL!!!!!! That argument did not involve what you just stated. You’ve tried to change the argument so many times from the original.

                  None of what you post changes the fact that you weaseled your way out of a really bad argument by trying to claim that “excellent” and “accuracy” are synonymous. No English teacher will agree with you.

                  Excellent; extremely good; outstanding.

                  Accuracy; the quality or state of being correct or precise.

                  S. Meyer is a poster who has a really bad case of not being able to comprehend the basic nuances of his own language. It’s not his fault. He’s just a bit dense.

                  1. Svelaz, your pigmy brain doesn’t recognize the facts. That is why I copied one of the responses. I will provide more.

                    My primary contention stated at the time was: “If it is an excellent text, then it is accurate or reasonably so.”

                    You were too stupid at the time to recognize the context.

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      “ Svelaz, your pigmy brain doesn’t recognize the facts. That is why I copied one of the responses. I will provide more.”

                      You copied “one of the responses”. Not the ORIGINAL post you wrote that started that whole argument. Why don’t you post the original claim instead of a random post in the middle of a long rabbit hole of an argument you were making?

                      Increasing the insults won’t change fact that you had a bad argument from the get go.

                    2. “Why don’t you post the original claim ”

                      Svelaz, what do you think was said? Tell us, and I will send the first post.

                      The author of an article you linked to thought Howard Zinn wrote an excellent textbook on American history. If he is an excellent textbook writer, he would be an accurate textbook writer, which he is not. That was my point throughout.

            3. “ Lets be clear ALL protest is an attempt to influence. All expressions of anger are attempts to influence.

              There is not question at all that these protests are an attempt to influence.”

              No John. You’re unequivocally wrong.

              All expressions of anger are attempts to influence? No. They can just be expressions of anger full stop. Nothing more. They can just be expressing a feeling. That’s it.

              “ You and Anonymous keep trying to argue intent – all protest demonstrates the intent to influence.”

              The LAW is making intent the definitive requirement that makes a protest in front of a courthouse or private residence if a justice illegal.

              “ Making an intent to influence illegal would violate the first amendment.”

              Bit you’re arguing that protesters illegally protesting in front of justices homes because they are trying to “influence” their decision according to the law YOU are sayin is illegal?

              John you’re getting so folded into your pretzel logic you’re contradicting yourself.

              “ Current protesters are doing so at private homes, in private neighborhoods in places that are NOT recognized as free speech forums.”

              Sidewalks ARE recognized forums for free speech. Protesters are not in private property. It’s funny that you keep leaving out the fact that there are sidewalks in their neighborhood. Public sidewalks. That’s why can’t be arrested if they are protesting peacefully.

                1. A distinction without a difference. Sidewalks and streets are both public and also recognized venues used for free speech. Remember the Trump truckers protesting in D.C. and at the border? They were also exercising their constitutionally protected rights to protest. On streets. Trumps j6 supporters protesting on streets and sidewalks. Alito’s own neighbors have been reported to be protesting against his opinion.

                  1. Svelaz, start using a dictionary. Streets are for cars. When people march in the streets, they get permits to do so. If not, they violate the law.

                    Do you ever get things right?

                    1. “When people march in the streets, they get permits to do so,” except when they’re Jan. 6 protesters sent down Pennsylvania Ave. without a march permit, right? ;- )

                    2. “except when they’re Jan. 6 protesters sent down Pennsylvania Ave. without a march permit, right? ;- )”

                      If that is the case, you can tell them to get off the street and arrest them if they don’t. They were away from the homes of those they were protesting, unlike those in the street protesting at Alito’s house, which seemed like an act of intimidation.

                2. It does not matter – sidewalks, streets – no they are not government created public forums – the Capital is. the Mall is. Public spaces in from of the Supreme court and most courthouses are.

                  The protection afforded to speech declines moving from government created public forums to private spaces.

                  Speech on public sidewalks and even streets is OFTEN protected, but that protection is not absolute, and it is not nearly as high as at the capital.

                  Banning all speech on all sidewalks anywhere would be unconstitutional.

                  But there are myriads of laws that apply to speech on public sidewalks that are constitutional.

  3. “ Even after some groups supplied maps and addresses for the justices’ homes, President Biden could not muster the courage to denounce such acts.”

    Because it’s not illegal. Denouncing these legal acts would be like opposing the protesters who are rightly angry about the situation. The president is under no obligation to denounce it.

    What IS crushingly ironic, as Turley put it, is Turley is demanding the president denounce or condemn a constitutionally protected activity just like liberal students demand their school administration condemn or denounce conservatives speakers for their views despite the fact that it is also constitutionally protected activity. He stated that it may be legal but it’s still not right. I’m sure Turley is oblivious to the irony in his demands the administration denounce such activities.

    1. How ironic that Turley is being paid to criticize a POTUS for allegedly lacking “courage to denounce” acts of protest, when he refuses to comment on Trump not only inciting a riot but reveling in the devotion of his fans for 3 hours while his staff and even dumb little Ivanka begged him to put a stop to it. How could he put a stop to the tangible proof that he was loved and he was powerful? And, BTW, the protestors of the Alito decision weren’t breaking any laws, weren’t there because they were orchestrated to try to violently prevent the Constitutional transfer of power, and weren’t there because they believed a lie.

  4. If a group of picketers were chanting in front of my house for an hour, but there was a line of MD or VA police between my house and the protesters, would I feel threatened? No. Would I be annoyed? Yes. But there is no constitutional law protecting me from being annoyed. So what would be my concern? That since my address was made available, that someone, either a protester or someone who wasn’t even there, could come back when the police were gone and harm me or a family member. So the issue, for me, is that Congress should pass a law allowing people to opt-out of having personal information, such as name, address, age, social security number, bought and sold online. This information can be used to stalk and harm people, as well as for identity theft. Until Congress exerts some control over the data brokers companies, it isn’t really concerned about anyone’s safety.

    1. Hey Tin, remind us again of which case or decision you are currently working on. Some nitwit thinks it is ok if protesters for some reason would go to his house but can’t differentiate between his little meaningless life and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES deciding on a momentous case.

      1. Hullbobby,

        “ Some nitwit thinks it is ok if protesters for some reason would go to his house but can’t differentiate between his little meaningless life and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES deciding on a momentous case.”

        It is ok because the law applies equally to all and that means justices can be subject to protests in front of their homes. Congressmen have had protests at their homes, even the president has had protests in front of his home. Supreme Court justices are not immune just because they are Supreme Court justices.

        1. Svelaz, the LAW states that you can’t protest in front of the Justices homes. Why is this so darn difficult for the partisan hacks like you?

          1. hullbobby, the LAW actually states something narrower than what you’ve claimed. “Why is this so darn difficult for the partisan hacks like you?”

  5. The human race deserves the death penalty. Nuclear war should be the method of execution.

  6. “However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to mob demands. This is unadulterated rage by people who no longer recognize any limits of decency or civility in our political discourse.”

    Turley has gone to a new level to describe peaceful protesters. He has always been able to read minds and declare the intent of others but this is a new low.
    His assertion that the right-wing of SCOTUS would support their right to protest is off too. They are quite capable of making a rule that only applies to themselves. While other Branches of govt. make the pretense of operating in the sunshine. SCOTUS refused to allow their open hearings to be televised. Why?

  7. If we ignore this Law….which Laws do we not ignore?

    Congress passed the Bill…a President signed it into law.

    Enforce it….let the Defendants argue their case in Court.

    At some point that case might make it to the Supreme Court….if it elects to hear that Case.

    The Court could over turn the case and send it back to Congress.

    Congress then would have to take a stand….either to strengthen the Law or Repeal it.

    Just ignoring the Law is NOT the correct way…..and the Professor knows it.

    If the AG can ignore that Law…why can I not ignore a myriad of other Laws that affect me as a Citizen?

    In this I strongly disagree with Professor Turley.

    1. Ralph Chappell,

      What you’re not getting is that the law cannot be applied to these protesters because they are not doing what the law says is illegal. Turley is pointing this out and chastising people like you who are wanting to trample on the protesters free speech rights. Turley is guilty of fomenting this misguided notion that this law applies. He’s publishing this column because he realized he implied these protesters could be charged under this law and now they are demanding the protesters be arrested. Turley is responsible for putting the idea in your head and now he’s trying to dispel the idea because he knows it’s wrong to apply that law.

      1. “. . . trample on the protesters free speech rights.”

        Leave aside the particulars of that law. The fundamental issue is this: Where do you get the “right” to violate an individual’s right to the peaceful use of his own property?

        There is no such thing as the “right” to violate another person’s rights.

        1. Sam,

          “ Leave aside the particulars of that law. The fundamental issue is this: Where do you get the “right” to violate an individual’s right to the peaceful use of his own property?”

          The peaceful use of your own property ends where public property begins. Protesting on public property OUTSIDE of your property is not illegal. Their right to protest on public property that is in front of your private property is protected.

          You can close the blinds, windows and doors and still be within your right to be in your property. However you don’t have a right not to be annoyed. It’s a consequence of freedom of speech.

          There are limits of course. No protests in the middle of the night, overly loud chanting or vandalizing property. Simply protesting on a sidewalk in front of a home IS constitutionally protected.

          1. “The peaceful use of your own property . . .”

            Their cacophony and screaming violates that right. Further, there is no such thing as the “right” to clog public sidewalks and roads.

  8. I almost always agree with Turley but I am on the other side on this issue. How does the professor know the actual intent of the protesters as they circle their homes.

    The case is PENDING, the protesters are trying to intimidate the Justices and unless I forgot how to read it is a crime. I know Professor Turley wants to be a free speech absolutist but sometimes trying to hold on to your binky can cause pretzel logic and unclear thinking.

    1. Indeed, I like JT comments generally, but disagree in this case. The intent clearly is to intimidate the justices to change or modify their ruling. Pelosi explicitly called on people to protest at their homes for that particular reason. Protesting at the SC building is quite different form protesting at someone’s private residence. I also agree with TIN that we need a law protecting our private information from being exposed on the Internet.

    2. “ I almost always agree with Turley but I am on the other side on this issue. How does the professor know the actual intent of the protesters as they circle their homes.”

      Their homes are being encircled. They are protesting on a public sidewalk in front of their homes. It’s legal. Everyone knows that the protesters are angry and expressing their views. Republicans just want to punish the protesters because they are doing a legally protected activity that THEY don’t like and can’t stop them from exercising including Turley.

      1. “ Their homes are being encircled.”

        Correction, Their homes are NOT being encircled.

  9. Would like Professor Turley to write a piece on “unconstitutional laws” (like 18 USC 1507 above) that are intentionally unenforced. It’s a gaming of the justice system that makes it very difficult to overturn illegal laws. Unconstitutional laws used to intimidate but rarely enforce.

    If a prosecutor actually indicts and convicts anyone, the person indicted is granted “legal standing” as a plaintiff in court and can therefore overturn the illegal law (or illegal clauses of a law) in a constitutional lawsuit. The net result is the illegal portions of those laws is overturned as unconstitutional.

    The way the gaming seems to happen, is prosecutors and government officials use these illegal laws to intimidate or dish out punishment. By never indicting or convicting, the law never get’s overturned by the courts.

    Having said that, U.S. Supreme Court members deserve as much security as presidents or members of Congress (maybe more). Judges many times rule against what most citizens want, many times very unpopular. It can be done legally without gaming the system using unconstitutional laws.

    1. Ashcroft,

      “ Would like Professor Turley to write a piece on “unconstitutional laws” (like 18 USC 1507 above) that are intentionally unenforced. ”

      It IS enforced. Here’s an example of the law being applied,

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/texas-man-pleads-guilty-federal-charge-stemming-disturbance-us-supreme-court

      Note that this involved an actual violation as described in the law.

      “ Grogan pled guilty on Sept. 25, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a charge of picketing or parading in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1507, which covers illegal demonstrations within federal court buildings. The Honorable Randolph D. Moss scheduled sentencing for Dec. 10, 2015. The charge carries a statutory maximum of 12 months in prison and potential financial penalties.”

      “ Grogan entered the courtroom at about 10:30 a.m., as arguments were under way. A short time later, he stood and began yelling statements in a very loud, forceful voice toward the front of the courtroom, where the Justices were seated at the court bench.”

      Protesting on a public sidewalk in front of a justices home is not illegal according to this law. The justices already made up their minds. The “intent” here is pointless. Expressing their anger is protected under the constitution therefore this law does not apply. That’s why it is “intentionally unenforced”.

  10. Turley is a hypocrite. He is the one who literally brought up the point that these protests could be treated as a crime. He’s the one who put the idea in the Trump MAGA crowd of this blog.

    From Turley’s own mouth,

    “ In this case, the Biden administration and the Justice Department have condemned the court’s leaked draft — but not the threatened protests at justices’ homes, even though those arguably could be treated as a crime. Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending.”

    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/09/from-court-packing-to-leaking-to-doxing-white-house-yields-to-a-national-rage-addiction/

    He doesn’t fully emphasize the distinction until this column came out. He FED THE RAGE and is now seeing the consequences of implying these protests could be considered criminal.

    Turley is a massive hypocrite. He never mentions why these protests are wrong in his eyes. He just says they are. Yet as someone here mentioned similar protests occurred at abortion providers homes and Turley doesn’t mention them. Would they be equally condemnable or does he quietly approve of them because he is against abortion too?

  11. “ These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization.”

    Why does Turley believe these protests are worthy of condemnation? He never explains why? They are just venting their anger and frustration at the source of their ire. Why is that condemnable?

    Doxing is legal, protesting at judges homes is legal, Turley even acknowledges it.

      1. You embarrass yourself yet again, Fishy.

        We are Ultra MAGA. We have a Great MAGA King.

          1. “Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self evident.
            –Arthur Schopenhauer

            *You are at stage 1, Fishy.

      2. Turley is miffed at the sight of the feeding frenzy after throwing the chum into the water.

  12. The obvious purpose of these protests is to intimidate six justices into changing their position on the abortion case. One can extend the intent to obstructing a judicial proceeding.

    Further, having to place Justice Alito and his family to an undisclosed, safe location illustrates that at least one justice has been threatened with physical harm which again constitutes intimidation. In at least one other case the “mostly peaceful” protests involved trespassing at the home of a justice, an act to intimidate.

    These acts of protest have risen to the point that the Attorney General was compelled to order that U.S. Marshall’s establish protection details for the justices.

    Protests are protected speech. However, the USSC has established that the right does not include the use of fighting words or yelling fire in a crowded theater. The right does not include does not extend to intimidation of a judge, juror, or witness in a federal judicial proceeding.

    Being a free speech absolutist is fine, but as an attorney and law professor JT should be able to recognize the dividing line.

    1. Williamdowney5,

      Turley DID recognize the dividing line. After he first implied it may be criminal in another column.

      It’s his audience that don’t recognize the line or don’t want the line to be recognized. They WANT the protesters arrested because they don’t like the idea that they can. The excuse they profess is that they are breaking a law by claiming they “know” the protesters intent without being able to articulate a credible reason to do so besides just rhetoric.

      There has to be actual interference in the administration of justice or obstruction. None of that has been done by the protesters.

  13. I’m still not past the fact that Garland operating at supersonic speed, for a govt agency, targeted Parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists. I have not seen anything where Garland has called off those snarling junk yard dogs, aka. FBI

    We also have the the DoJ planning and leading a kidnapping attempt on the Governor of Michigan. That is just a tip of the iceberg of the federal govt spying on citizens on a massive scale.
    Using the huge data base of citizen communications, over 80% of those 702 data bases for backward look up of communications are illegal as determined by 4 separate investigations covering 4 different time spans,conducted by FISA judges. Comey and Wray have done nothing to address the crimes, almost all conducted by private contractors under the direction of the FBI

    So I am basically “rules for radicals” adopter, using the exact same techniques Garland is quick to utilize in order to advance the desires of the Democrat Party.

  14. Demonstrating, parading or picketing on the Supreme Court plaza is illegal. A clue was prosecuted for that offense. It’s a “non-public forum” on which those activities are prohibited.

  15. Patients at PP clinics are harassed, threatened and followed as are the staff. Legislatures have been threatened with guns by “patriots”. But no matter, it’s ok until it’s right wing Justices who are inconvenienced.

    1. Justice Holmes is another idiot that can’t seem to process the fact that a clinic is not a home and that protesting an established law is not the same as intimidating Justices in the process of DECIDING A CASE”. I am so tired of the left’s stupidity. Last night we had Liz Warren screaming that the will of the majority was stopped by a minority…after losing the vote 49-51???? Of course the lame reporter didn’t broach the matter with her, he just rubbed his chin and made a sad “democracy is dying face”.

    2. “Patients at PP clinics are harassed, threatened and followed as are the staff.”

      Link to source?

      Meanwhile, the facts paint our present reality.

      “Wisconsin pro-life group calls out Pelosi’s inciteful rhetoric after Molotov cocktail attack”
      https://www.foxnews.com/media/wisconsin-nancy-pelosi-pro-life-attack-molotov-cocktail

      JULAINE APPLING: It seems to me that Nancy Pelosi is partly responsible for inciting the kind of violence that we were the recipients of early on Mother’s Day morning. That kind of rhetoric heats things up. It doesn’t cool it down. And our leaders need to be held responsible and held accountable for the kind of message they send. We had a similar message early on from the governor [Tony Evers].

      The kind of language they use is meaningful. And I don’t think Nancy Pelosi’s words there help us at all in tamping down what we’re experiencing. And I will say, too, if they’re willing to do this kind of action with a draft opinion, what should we be expecting when we actually get a final opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue?

    3. Legislatures have been threatened with guns by “patriots”
      There is a huge distance, between, Citizens exercising their1st amendment right to seek redress from their congressman, and 2cnd amendment right to keep and bear arms. vs threatening legislators with guns.

  16. Turley says:

    “Likewise, many Democrats have sought to bar Republican candidates from election ballots for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or calling for a challenge to the certification of that election.”

    Questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election?

    Noooo. Perpetuating a fraud upon the country by attempting to throw our legitimate state electors for fake ones. Turley will not be able to maintain his disbelief that Trump and his cronies were not acting in good faith. They were informed by Barr’s DOJ that the election was neither rigged nor stolen. The Trumpists acted in bad faith.

    “Trial date set in defamation suit against Fox News over U.S. election claims.”

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trial-date-set-defamation-suit-against-fox-news-over-us-election-claims-2022-04-12/

    “An April 2023 jury trial has been scheduled in Dominion Voting Systems Inc’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit accusing Fox News of trying to boost its ratings by falsely claiming the voting machine company rigged the 2020 U.S. presidential election against former President Donald Trump.”

    “Davis in December ruled against a Fox News request that he dismiss Dominion’s lawsuit. Owens wrote in his ruling that it was “reasonably conceivable” that Dominion has a viable defamation claim, and allowed the company to continue to seek documents and witness testimony from Fox.”
    —————

    Who wants to bet that Turley has been or will be deposed and his emails to Fox subpoenaed?

    1. “Who wants to bet that Turley has been or will be deposed and his emails to Fox subpoenaed?“

      Again with the betting? You just welched on an earlier one.

      1. I wrote to Paul to hold our bets. You saw that. I have not heard his reply. I will send him my money. My hunch is you won’t.

        1. You are hedging. You sent him an email and then forgot about it. Next thing I hear is you are trying to make a bet with another. That tells us something. You are not serious. More than likely you are welching.

  17. JT somehow neglected to mention that SCOTUS has ruled that it is a constitutional right to protest at the houses of abortion clinic staff members. I guess the can dish it but can’t take it. Republican hypocrisy at its finest.

    1. And the pro-abortionists cannot take it, but feel they’re entitled to dish it out in spades. The law is clear against attempting to intimidate judges or justices, much more murky against other protests. The SCOTUS decision, however, does not protect trespassing, and I encourage ANYONE to have trespassers on their property arrested.

  18. I recall quite distinctly a time when abortion providers were targeted for protest at their homes. This was met, rightly, I think, with vehement and loud denouncement from the very people who laud the same tactics now against SCOTUS justices.

    The point is the double standard – it’s no longer even hypocrisy, it’s too openly acknowledged for that – that it’s fine for “us” to do, because “we’re right,” but not for “you,” because “you are wrong.”

    A nation of men, rather than laws, against which the Founders and Framers warned us strongly – and, as we see, prophetically.

    1. Constitutional carry laws are increasing, more are passing in several states every year. Open carry laws are even more prevalent. Garland will not even stutter to arrest and jail, any and all armed protesters showing up an the sidewalk outside a leftist judges home. I’m guessing those citizens exercising the rights will not be given the deffernce that is on display now.

      1. Those gun laws are state laws. Feds have no jurisdiction. And MAGAs bring guns to protests all the time. Sometimes they even shoot people at protests.

        1. we will make it a priority to bring more ammo so that when pedophile groomers like you attend these anarchist gatherings, we will have a better success rate in hitting squishy targets. Because we aim to please

        2. Feds have no jurisdiction.

          Garland is ignoring those jurisdictional boundaries. He has taken to spying on local public school board meetings and monitoring parents. Most likely doing secret 702 lookups, getting all their e mails, texts, phone calls, internet searches, etc, No warrant required.

          1. “The FBI exists solely to harass, investigate, intimidate, and threaten Americans on the Right. Agents still to this day are investigating and arresting people who protested Biden’s election on January 6. It is hopelessly corrupt—and Garland’s stonewalling should not be tolerated.” ~julie kelly

    2. Ellen Evans,

      There’s a difference between the two. Protests at abortion providers homes was more about harassment than just expressing anger. They had to contend not just with protests at home, but at work and it involved obstruction, harassment, and even violence. Anti-abortion protesters often blocked and harassed patients and staff, stalked doctors, made death threats and sometimes attacked doctors and staff. There’s much more to it than just a simple comparison between the two.

      The protests at justices homes don’t involve harassment, violence or obstruction. The question is, why exactly Turley thinks these protests are condemnable?

      He wants the Biden administration to condemn a legal act that even he admits is perfectly constitutional.

      He’s not defending the protesters he’s pointing out with a sense of grudge behind it that what they are doing is perfectly legal, BUT he doesn’t like it and is demanding the administration condemned the protests even tho they are constitutionally protected. Turley wants the government do condemn a co constitutionally protected activity.

      1. Wut? Stopping babbling. Nothing you write makes any sense

      2. “ Turley wants the government do condemn a co constitutionally protected activity.”

        Correction, Turley wants the government to condemn a constitutionally protected activity.

        1. Svelaz, please cite the case that determined that the law in question is unconstitutional. It may end being so, but it has not been litigated yet.

          1. Hullbobby,

            “ Svelaz, please cite the case that determined that the law in question is unconstitutional.”

            Which one are you referring to?

      3. I think it’s definitely harrassment – the Justices have received death threats, I understand, and loud noises outside one’s home, preventing one from exercising one’s legal right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and property, can certainly be considered harrassment.

        Further, there has been trespassing involved. I do not know whether the local police are being cooperative in enforcing the laws against trespass, or have been told not to by their superiors, but I would recoommend, as I’ve said, that anyone experiencing trespassers have the malefactors arrested.

        What was your view of the BLM-antifa rioters climbing onto residential buildings in the wee hours, making a ruckus, threatening the residents with illegal confiscation of their residences and with grievous bodily harm?

        I think all of this is unacceptable behaviour – at least, it is seen as such by civilized people. Too many are not, these days.

    3. “The point is the double standard – it’s no longer even hypocrisy, it’s too openly acknowledged for that – that it’s fine for “us” to do, because “we’re right,” but not for “you,” because “you are wrong.”
      ***************************
      To quote an old blog friend here (who was quoting Jonah Goldberg): ” … behind every double standard [stands] an unconfessed single standard.”

      1. Not a Jonah Goldberg fan, but that might be accurate – as long as I understand correctly that the so-called “single standard” means “we can do anything we want, but you aren’t allowed to do diddly.”

Leave a Reply