encouragement of a felony is not a felony surrounding the home of a judge's family with a demonstrable intent to influence their ruling is
How do you know their intent, are you in their minds? See here's the problem I have with you. If someone takes two things and cynically applies them as connected, you balk if it's about a Republican, but you happily jump on it if it's about your enemy, the Dems. I noticed that pattern with you and many others on the right. Some on the left too, but it's definitely worse on the right.
What is their intent if not to influence the outcome, somehow? If they aren't trying to influence the outcome, they can wait until after the ruling is made to voice their displeasure. If they are trying to influence the outcome, it is clearly a violation. That said, something being in violation of a US code doesn't necessarily make it wrong. In theory, one should weigh that against whatever the stakes are. But in this case, I don't think the protests at their property have any chance at bringing about positive change. It only serves to distract attention away from what the consequences of the impending opinion will be for women in this country.
According the article @Os Trigonum posted, "It is a federal crime to protest in front of a court or a judge's home with the intent of influencing the court's decision. It is not, however, illegal to protest outside a judge's home for other reasons, such as expressing outrage." So you are logically deducing it must be to influence the court's decision. But there is no way to prove that given the second statement - they are expressing outrage. I would think free speech absolutists would be defending this.
related https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/...aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/ “The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices by jonathanturley May 11, 2022 Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.” For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court. While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes. Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media. We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.” Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, Mystal declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.” Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet). That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial. The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter. In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers. For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can be rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.
I mean all these people complaining about x liberal not condemning y action, where have you been the last 6 years????
Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court The Senate has passed legislation to beef up security for Supreme Court justices https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-passes-bill-boost-security-supreme-court-84604795 excerpt: Protests have erupted in front of the Supreme Court Building and around the country after a leaked draft opinion suggested a majority of conservatives on the court are prepared to end the constitutional right to an abortion. The Senate legislation is a technical change that allows Supreme Court law enforcement to provide around-the-clock security to immediate family members, in line with protection for some people in the executive and legislative branches. It was sponsored by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. more at the link
Abortion rights protests kick off planned 'summer of rage' https://theweek.com/abortion-law/1013556/abortion-rights-protests-kick-off-planned-summer-of-rage
Weird. WP hears that Roe will be overturned and thinks "what are the videogame companies doing about this?!" Srsly? To address the article's logic, btw, the Roe decision is nothing like the murder of George Floyd. It's asinine to expect the reaction would be the same, or to imply that there is some hypocrisy in behaving differently.
1. How many people have been harmed or killed so far in the Roe protests? 2. How has official government duties been obstructed because of the protests? 3. Are the SCOTUS justices' rights to privacy, etc. being violated? Just to be clear Abortion is something that is protested for or against EVERY SINGLE DAY in America. It has been since the 90's when the Republican party adopted this culture war turnout topic. I think our society will survive Roe protests. If laws are broken the police should prosecute where necessary. Otherwise I care more about basically every other important topic we would otherwise be discussing.
Compared to those toting guns and shooting people for sport or hate I'd say those protesters are pretty harmless.
