Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2022

Twitter: Calling for the Assassination of Supreme Court Justices Does Not Violate Our Terms of Service

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



I reported the following tweet to Twitter, because it explicitly called for Supreme Court justices to be assassinated:

The cartoon in question also called for the assassination of justices, albeit with a tiny fig leaf of deniability:

The response I got from Twitter regarding the explicit call for assassination: sorry, doesn’t violate our terms of service!

The email included a helpful list of material that would violate the terms of service. It includes a prohibition on, not just threats, celebrations of violence, and promoting terrorism or violent extremism, but also wishing harm on someone:

This is a total joke. I see a lot of people saying “Elon Musk will fix this!” but his proposed standard is to allow anything that passes First Amendment muster, and this probably would. That said, apparently the people doing the moderation are useless and the Elon Musk standard already prevails, unless you misgender someone. So Elon really wouldn’t hurt much.

Meanwhile, people are protesting outside the homes of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in an effort to influence their votes, which is illegal under a statute that is likely constitutional.

This is a dangerous environment and it is why the Court needs to get the abortion issue out of the courts and into the legislatures. Public influence campaigns are appropriate for legislators. Not for judges. They are supposed to interpret the law. Period.

I plan to have much more to say about this.

116 Responses to “Twitter: Calling for the Assassination of Supreme Court Justices Does Not Violate Our Terms of Service”

  1. Imagine what would happen if some idiot were to Tweet an offhanded remark about a plane full of explosives crashing into Twitter headquarters. I don’t imagine they would respond with such insouciance.

    JVW (020d31)

  2. However, calling Caitlyn Jenner “Bruce” is “symbolic violence” for which a Twitterer will be banned.

    Elon Musk called Twitter a clown car that crashed into a gold mine, and with her $17 million/year salary, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s enforcer of that policy, tends to confirm it.

    My question to Twitterers is: Why for you putting your speech in the hands of a person like that and making her a multimillionaire in the process? Eh? Why?

    nk (be17b5)

  3. Again, my late father put it best:

    The only just or fair law is one you do not mind in the hands of your bitterest enemies.

    He may have been quoting someone else, but I will always give him credit for trying to teach me this important principle.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  4. My question to Twitterers is: Why for you putting your speech in the hands of a person like that and making her a multimillionaire in the process? Eh? Why?

    Because not everyone can handle the rought-and-tumble of commenting on a current events blog such as this perhaps? It is amazing to me how many really aggressively dumb opinions one can find on Twitter, but — you know what? — aggressively dumb opinions need to find a home somewhere too.

    JVW (020d31)

  5. The way to stop this is to prosecute these protestors along the same vein as the J6 prosecution.

    They are not only explicitly violating 18 U.S. Code § 1507, but a case could be made for obstruction of justice as well.

    The fact that this current administration isn’t taking this line will only fuel the view that the J6 prosecution is done for partisan reasons rather than the “rule of law”.

    whembly (3b98b6)

  6. FYI

    Steve Cox
    @RealSteveCox
    Former Independent Candidate for Congress, California’s 39th. Let it all burn.

    You don’t want to know what @KarnComrade says he is. Trust me!

    nk (2443b8)

  7. with her $17 million/year salary, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s enforcer of that policy, tends to confirm it.

    Many people here would do a better, fairer job for half that salary.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  8. To be fair, the tweet only broke 5 of the rules, and not the important one (harassing based on identity).

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  9. I agree that calling for violence is wrong and improper. It may not always be illegal, but Twitter sometimes acts under cover of first amendment speech protections and sometimes acts under cover of being a private enterprise. I don’t personally know how to make the fine distinctions between public thing and private thing in all instances. Obviously, my personal opinions can not be the sole basis for broad public policy. Twitter, and the internet in general, has allowed expression of real fringe opinions. And in all fairness, some of my ideas are probably considered on the fringe by some. I look at Twitter; I mostly look at things that I consider enlightened, but sometimes I like to shake my head at some of the freaks out there. I see this as a difficult issue, and there are very few-maybe no- politicians who I would trust to make those decisions.

    Fred (25e171)

  10. > The fact that this current administration isn’t taking this line will only fuel the view that the J6 prosecution is done for partisan reasons rather than the “rule of law”.

    The difference between protesting outside the building and breaking into it and ransacking it are, of course, not relevant in any way. Only partisanship can possibly explain it!

    aphrael (4c4719)

  11. @10 I’m addressing those protestors doing it outside of the Justice’s home.

    whembly (898840)

  12. #3 Simon Jester – That saying reminds me of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical imperative:

    Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  13. Anti-abortion office fire bombed. justices in hiding. We have pretty quickly gone from dred scott II to harpers ferry! This is what happens when you mess with 70% of the population.

    asset (60e6b1)

  14. This is what happens when you mess with 70% of the population.

    Next up, firebombing IRS offices, right?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  15. Well, President Joe Biden – or rather his press secretary Jen Psaki (until Friday) did issue a statement. It did not mention assassination but rather only violence or threats – and anew one – vandalism, probably because they didn’t want to give anybody ideas.

    https://www.newser.com/story/320329/after-protests-at-judges-homes-biden-speaks-out.html

    …NEEWSER) – President Biden on Monday expressed his support for judges after protesters converged on the private homes of two Supreme Court justices in the DC area over the weekend. “Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety,” said a statement tweeted on Biden’s behalf by press chief Jenn Psaki, per the Hill. The president “strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest,” said the statement. “But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism.” The protests outside the homes of Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts in Chevy Chase, Maryland, came in the wake of the leaked draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade….

    Somebody has apparently calculated that 93% of all abortions in the United States would remain legal under that ruling.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  16. All these events can be traced to one thing: the leak.

    Judges assigned to ‘interpret law’ are and should, ideally, be non-political in their reasoning. Yet the motivation behind the leak was clearly political– and the source a small pool of bureaucrats- robed or otherwise- less than 50 people– with a history of obsessive secrecy. So something is rotten in the bowels of Robeland.

    So who did it? It has been a week and still no answer. And each day without any resolution only serves to further corrode the veneer of integrity which has cloaked this institution for ages. When SNL can skewer SCOTUS with a skit or two quilled in less than four days, rather than routinely roasting Donald Trump, you know they’re fast approaching the gravitas of ‘The Dancing Itos.’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLMp-1NdzR8

    DCSCA (46598d)

  17. This needs stronger words. And warnings.

    This seems to be a new tactic during the last few years that the far (?) left is enamored of.

    These demonstrations at people’s home are not good either if they happen to a Cabinet official, a mayor etc.

    It may be worse when it happens to judges but it is no good when it happens to politicians either or their appointees.

    https://rollcall.com/2018/06/25/waters-urges-more-protests-like-sanders-at-restaurant-others-plead-for-civility

    White House press secretary was asked to leave Virginia restaurant after protesters chanted DHS director out of another

    https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/06/21/the-confrontation-of-kirstjen-nielsen-at-a-dc-mexican-restaurant-was-a-watershed-moment-heres-how-it-really-went-down

    Amanda Werner‘s friend was dining at MXDC when he recognized none other than Kirstjen Nielsen at the sleek downtown Mexican restaurant—just a day after the Department of Homeland Security Secretary defended the separation of children from their parents at the border.

    He immediately texted Werner: “DHS Secretary Nielsen is having dinner at MXDC. Can you tweet on your account? Get activists here.” He sent a snapshot of the Trump Cabinet member in a black suit checking her phone at a nearby table.

    Werner, who identifies as transmasculine and uses they/them pronouns, is a campaign strategist for legal advocacy group Public Justice. But in the past year, Werner has also made a hobby out of confronting the rich and powerful. Last October, they went viral after dressing up as the Monopoly Man and photo-bombing the CEO of Equifax during a Senate hearing about the company’s data breach. More recently, they showed up as a Russian troll at the congressional hearing for Mark Zuckerberg.

    Their basic defense is that on their substantial point they are right and if you don’t disagree with them, then that’s the thing to do.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  18. Whembly — again, you are asserting that the only reason one might be in favor of criminally prosecuting people for breaking into the capital during an official proceeding, but *not* in favor of criminally prosecuting people for protesting outside someone’s house, is partisanship.

    I both think it’s really bad for a crowd to protest outside a justice’s house *and* think there are reasons other than partisanship why one might favor prosecuting the former and not the latter.

    I’m objecting to the assertion that only partisanship can explain different views on prosecuting the 1/6 crowd and the protest-judges-at-home crowd. I think that’s absurd, and I think the assumption that only partisanship can possibly be the motivation for people who disagree with the speaker to be *one of the biggest problems facing America today*. The reflexive assumption that one’s opponents are motivated only by partisanship is corrosive of discourse at best.

    aphrael (661eeb)

  19. The only reason this would not be illegal is that the threat is not serious, but it maybe should require getting an active avowed denial to police or a protective agency of a threat.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  20. Yeah, but I admit I laugh when Glenn Reynolds repeats his line about corrupt politicians by referencing the treatment of Tories during the American Revolution:

    “Tar. Feathers. Some assembly required.”

    Incitement, I think it’s not. But I can see how others would argue.

    Now the parallel phrasing alluding to the execution of Mussolini MIGHT be more nearly incitement.

    “Noose. Lamppost. Some assembly required.”

    But I rely on law and court cases that protect me, unless I specifically name the person to be “assembled” on a particular date and in a particular place. “AOC, with the lead pipe, in the library, on April Fools’ Day 2035.” …

    pouncer (2af20a)

  21. DCSCA (46598d) — 5/9/2022 @ 12:55 pm

    Judges assigned to ‘interpret law’ are and should, ideally, be non-political in their reasoning.

    Justice Alito was being political is writing that this reversal should not bring into question the court ruling about gay marriage, although he could say that nothing else is being decided now.

    Loving vs Virginia, though, which some attackers of Alito’s draft bring up and say could similiarly be overruled, was based on a different concept.

    Alito also abided by stare decisis in resting any right against the states on substantive due process rather than the privileges and immunities clause, as Justice Hugo Black wanted in 1948. The difference would come in regard to the establishment of religion clause which would exists against the states only to the extent it was a personal right. A right not to be preached at maybe or joining in or appearing to join in in some prayer they didn’t assent to, but not spending money especially on an equal basis.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  22. I think it would be hard to argue that Donald Trump incited people with his words at a rally, but what some people are saying with regard to this upcoming decision does not (except on the grounds that nothing bad has happened yet.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  23. If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Harry Truman. Only a partisan thinks the abortion ruling is not political. I have said jan.6 prosecution have been over done by establishment liberals for political gain. Same with russia/trump colusion. The democrat establishment corporate non-violence is now being discredited. Biden looks like and old fool that he is. The left demands action now!

    asset (60e6b1)

  24. What Alito did not do:

    http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/germandecision

    The [West] German Supreme Court tackled the issue of abortion two years after Roe v. Wade, affirming that the unborn have a right to life guaranteed by the constitution, that abortion is “an act of killing”, and that the unborn child deserves legal protection throughout its development.

    The decision is an instructive contrast to Roe because it cuts across the usual categories, and cannot be described as “liberal” or “conservative”.
    Notably, it said that the state has a duty to use “social, political, and welfare means” to foster developing human life, and that these are preferable to penal measures (though the latter are not ruled out). The decision came several years after decisions in the U.S. and Britain legalized abortion. It struck down a law that legalized some abortions in the first three months.

    The decision considered the full range of arguments for abortion, both early (legalization had been a topic of debate in Germany since the turn of the century) and recent (used in other countries such as the United States and Britain that legalized abortion several years before). In particular, it specifically rejected the main points of reasoning in Roe v. Wade as well as its “term solution” as inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of the right to life.

    The part of the German constitution referred to in the decision, Article 1, Paragraph 1, says that “Everyone has the right to life”, but does not specifically mention the unborn.

    The decision was confirmed after the reunification of Germany, striking down East German laws which permitted abortions under most circumstances.

    It should be noted that the decision does not make all abortions illegal. The legislature implemented a system of mandatory counseling which has as one of its goals to present the case that the developing unborn child is an independent human life. However, no legal sanction is applied in the first 3 months of pregnancy if the counseling is completed and the abortion is performed. Despite some of the reasoning contained in the decision, this system has not been found by the court to conflict with the constitution.

    Some abortions are therefore de facto legal. A significant number still occur, but the incidence per capita is about one-fifth that of the United States.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  25. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/abortion-law-germany-nazis-women

    Because while babycaust.de is legal, it is not legal for doctors to put information about abortion on their websites. That is seen as “advertising” abortion, and is dealt with under paragraph 219a, a leftover Nazi law that had been forgotten about until so-called pro-lifers started to use it to hit practitioners with lawsuits.

    If that wasn’t surprising enough, their campaign is actually succeeding. Suddenly we are living in a country where doctors are being sentenced for giving their patients information about the “crime of abortion”. And make no mistake, abortion is a crime in Germany, only hardly anybody knew that either.

    The 1970’s West German Supreme Court decision had said that legalizing abortion would be acting like the Nazis or something close to that.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  26. “Tar. Feathers. Some assembly required.”

    Incitement, I think it’s not. But I can see how others would argue.

    I wonder too if the fact that the practice of tarring and feathering a scoundrel is so archaic is one of the reasons that you wouldn’t take that exhortation all that seriously. I mean, when is the last time you heard of someone actually being subjected to that punishment? About the time that you heard someone had been “rode out of town on a rail” I would suppose. But as you point out, a more modern incitement such as the Mussolini one or else suggesting “don’t shoot until you see the white of their eyes” would be taken far more seriously.

    JVW (020d31)

  27. @21. Catholic Alito is a baseball fanatic, Sammy; it’s like a religion to him. He proposes to reverse a ruling by the umpires in a World Series game half a century ago. Similar to the proposed asterisk was for Roger Maris: ‘The asterisk was proposed because Maris played a 162 game schedule to break a record, Babe Ruth’s single season home run record, that was set in a 154 game season. It must be noted that the Commissioner of Baseball at the time, Ford Frick, was a close friend of Ruth’s and ghost wrote many articles attributed to Ruth during his playing days.’

    Alito wants to play Frick; instead, move on and ‘play ball.’ 😉

    https://sports.answers.com/sports/What_does_the_asterisk_mean_for_Roger_Maris

    DCSCA (fa7069)

  28. During the vietnam war protesters were shot and killed at kent state and jackson state. Also prosecuted like the chicago 8 , barrigan brothers and numerous others. Ask the holocaust survivors if they had a right to life. Their are no rights only privileges that can be taken away at anytime if not defended. The “rights” of the declaration of independents had to be enforced with bayonets not reasoned arguments at yorktown. Same with emancipation proclamation at cemetary ridge gettysburg pensylvania july 3 1863. Freedom isn’t free in fact it is the most expensive thing there is.

    asset (60e6b1)

  29. @27. I mean, when is the last time you heard of someone actually being subjected to that [tar and feathering] punishment?

    In August 2007, loyalist groups in Northern Ireland were linked to the tarring and feathering of an individual accused of drug-dealing.[27]

    In June 2020, multiple graves and memorials to Confederate soldiers at Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis, Indiana were tarred and feathered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

    Guess it’s sort like gathering at airports, watching airplanes take off, land and writing down the tail numbers. It was once a popular pastime. 😉

    DCSCA (fa7069)

  30. @29. That’s really the bigger, overview issue in this – rescinding a right. And just because it is a right- does not mean you must do it– it’s ‘freedom of choice.’ Thing is, if/when it is knocked down, it’ll just another benchmark in the long, spiraling decline of U.S. society. And that’s the true tragedy. Especially when U.S. taxpayers are sending billions of dollar to Ukraine- a country where abortion is legal:

    ‘Abortion in Ukraine is legal on request during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, including medical, social and personal grounds, and for any reason with the approval of a commission of physicians…

    Near the end of a long interview in 2019 during his political campaign, Volodymyr Zelenskyy (now President of Ukraine) was asked about abortion rights. The interviewer mentioned to Zelenskyy that laws are often adopted in Eastern and Central Europe that cause public outcry, saying that in Poland, for example, there were huge protests when the Polish government wanted to ban abortion. Zelenskyy stated that abortion should not be banned, that to get an abortion is a personal choice, and that there needs to be less impingement on human freedom.’ – source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

    DCSCA (fa7069)

  31. @18 I disagree.

    If the concerns for “Law & Order” is driving the prosecutions for the J6 defendants (as it should be and something I support!), then lack of concerns for prosecuting obvious intimidation tactics, such as protesting at the Justice’s home *is* absolutely partisan as all hell.

    All the Biden administration needed to do is to vociferously condemn such tactics.

    They couldn’t even do a mealy mouthed defense.

    It’s the like the BLM riots all over again, where Democrats and the left gave them cover because they’re doing it “for the right reason”. So, no, I’m not going to ignore when folks are being political jack wagons over it because in the end – any legit concerns/prosecution with real legit meat on it, would get the proverbial shoulder shrug from the rest of the country.

    This crap is literally how you get Trump.

    You don’t want Trump again, right? So, how ’bout a little consistency here and call out the BS.

    whembly (7e0293)

  32. On fox’s the five resident corporate democrat stooge harold ford said the violence must stop! Why? Your corporate check might not arrive on time? The court of last resort is not the supreme court but the street. This was true with dred scott decision and is true with dred scott II. 70% of americans support a women’s right to choose. Violence is american as cherry pie. H. rap Brown. He also said at his trial John Brown is the only white man I respect and he is dead! Malcolm X said we dont cotton much to white folks in the movement ;but if john brown were alive today we would make an exception in his case!

    asset (60e6b1)

  33. Only a partisan thinks the abortion ruling is not political.

    I think Roe should be overturned, but also think that a woman should have the right to get an abortion early in her pregnancy.

    One of these days you will learn about integrity and that the ends do not justify the means.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  34. Sad times in America, but hey another summer of burn baby burn.

    mg (8cbc69)

  35. @34. Pfft. A lot of things should be considered for reversal – or “overturned” – but aren’t.

    Six Times The New England Patriots Allegedly Cheated In Big Games; Shakespeare In Love beats Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture Oscar; NBC cancels Star Trek.

    Life is unfair.

    DCSCA (50edd2)

  36. One of these days you will learn about integrity and that the ends do not justify the means.

    Said the Chief Justice of ‘The Dancing Itos’ about the leaker?!?! The longer nobody is outted for leaking from their tint pool of people, the less “integrity” the be-robed bureaucrats have. They’re destroying themselves.

    DCSCA (50edd2)

  37. ‘Freedom of choice’ must be discouraged, Kevin. The cable television industry says so. 😉

    DCSCA (50edd2)

  38. “They are not only explicitly violating 18 U.S. Code § 1507”

    No, they’re not.

    “but a case could be made for obstruction of justice as well.”

    No, there couldn’t.

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  39. 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.

    Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  40. The cable television industry says so.

    Not to me.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  41. They are Millennials who have been told “No!”. Not a pretty sight.

    nk (2443b8)

  42. Are the protestors “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice”?

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  43. ‘Sad times in America, but hey another summer of burn baby burn.’

    That’s our Joey; determined to bring back inflation, soaring gas prices, abortion fights ‘Carter competence’… Hillary feminism seasoned with a little bra burning… Chico And The Man; Good Times; a little salt ‘n’ peppered flavoring with hot pants, leisure suits, All In The Family and the Jeffersons, some T&A Charlie’s Angels, canyon jumpin’ Knievel, CBs, the Bandit’s Trans-Am… with Starsky and Hutch for dessert! All the glorious, memorable joys that were 1970s U.S.A.! 😉

    “Burn baby, burn!” – ‘Disco Inferno’- The Trammps, 1976

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH-QwK4v0ZI

    DCSCA (6e4cd7)

  44. This seems to be a new tactic during the last few years that the far (?) left is enamored of.

    These demonstrations at people’s home are not good either if they happen to a Cabinet official, a mayor etc.

    Yeah, but it’s also dependent on the willingness of the neighborhood to put up with it. Back in 2019, a bunch of radical leftists decided to do a rather large protest outside the home of the head warden of the GEO immigration detention center in Aurora, Colorado. This is in the one real conservative area left in the city, and the protesters did not exactly endear themselves to the neighborhood during the protest.

    When they did a drive-through protest a few months later because COVID was going on, the neighborhood residents turned out in force–kicking and beating on the cars, throwing rocks at them, and yelling at them to get out. The protesters haven’t been back in the neighborhood since.

    Whether you agree with that kind of response or not, the results certainly speak for themselves. And if the protesters are allowed to continue intimidating Supreme Court judges in front of their homes, it’s clear it’s because the neighbors are in support of what is going on.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  45. Thank you, Jim at #12

    Simon Jester (959d87)

  46. During the vietnam war protesters were shot and killed at kent state and jackson state. Also prosecuted like the chicago 8 , barrigan brothers and numerous others

    They also had the snot beat out of them by blue-collar workers, and blew themselves up making bombs.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  47. Are the protestors “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice”?

    Davethulhu (da3c71) — 5/9/2022 @ 6:13 pm

    Did you miss this part, or do your glasses only show the left side of the sentence?

    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,

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  48. OT- MIRI’s Sharper View Hints at New Possibilities for Science

    https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/05/09/miris-sharper-view-hints-at-new-possibilities-for-science/

    Simply stunning.

    For Joey: ‘Look up, America, see what you’ve got…’

    It’s the real thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mxvTMrDEj0

    DCSCA (6e4cd7)

  49. #46 Simon Jester – You are welcome. In either form, your father’s or Kant’s, it’s a guide we all should follow.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  50. Are the protestors “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice”?

    How would they handle these sort of ‘castle stormers’ in 13th century England or there abouts? ‘Hold court’… and use your largest scales. 😉

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

    DCSCA (6e4cd7)

  51. “Did you miss this part”

    Are these protesters breaking the law?

    https://i.imgur.com/qyq69iN.png

    They’re clearly near a building housing a court of the United States.

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  52. They’re clearly near a building housing a court of the United States.

    Davethulhu (da3c71) — 5/9/2022 @ 7:49 pm

    Here, I’ll post it for you again, and maybe the bold text will seep through the catatracts:

    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,

    You do remember what a residence is, right?

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  53. “You do remember what a residence is, right?”

    You’re really tiresome, FWO.

    The law doesn’t care if it’s a courthouse or a residence, it applies equally to both.

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  54. “You do remember what a residence is, right?”

    You’re really tiresome, FWO.

    Not nearly as tiresome as your passive-aggressive behavior and bog-standard lefty tactical ignorance.

    The law doesn’t care if it’s a courthouse or a residence, it applies equally to both.

    Davethulhu (da3c71) — 5/9/2022 @ 8:07 pm

    And you dishonestly omitted the part about the residence, because it made your side look bad for protesting outside of Roberts and Kavanaugh’s homes.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  55. “And you dishonestly omitted the part about the residence, because it made your side look bad for protesting outside of Roberts and Kavanaugh’s homes.”

    Are you adding “mind reader” to your ever-growing list of specialties?

    I included the important part, intent.

    Are these protesters breaking the law?

    https://i.imgur.com/qyq69iN.png

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  56. Are you adding “mind reader” to your ever-growing list of specialties?

    I included the important part, intent.

    You selectively edited because the whole statement made your side look bad.

    Are these protesters breaking the law?

    Challenging school board members at board meetings is “domestic terrorism,” but protesting in front of the homes of conservative justices is not.

    Your world is certainly a strange place.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  57. “You selectively edited because the whole statement made your side look bad.”

    No I didn’t.

    “Challenging school board members at board meetings is “domestic terrorism,” but protesting in front of the homes of conservative justices is not.”

    I’m going to assume that your refusal to answer the question means that you’re at the “pound the table” stage of this discussion. Have a nice evening.

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  58. No I didn’t.

    Yes you did.

    What Kevin posted:

    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.

    Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

    What you quoted:

    “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice”

    Missing quite a few other words there, Dave.

    I’m going to assume that your refusal to answer the question means that you’re at the “pound the table” stage of this discussion. Have a nice evening.

    Davethulhu (da3c71) — 5/9/2022 @ 8:25 pm

    And I’m going to assume you’re fine with protesters intimidating judges outside of their homes solely because they share your political ideology, taking your selective editing in to account.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  59. Some stooge within the SCOTUS is making a mockery of the court– and getting away with it. WHO leaked that draft??

    Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly called the person who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade ‘foolish’ and ‘one bad apple’

    https://www.businessinsider.com/john-roberts-says-leaker-of-supreme-court-roe-is-foolish-2022-5

    It wasn’t one bad apple; it was custard:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZuHdSCFVE0

    “Who threw that pie?”

    DCSCA (ee7208)

  60. Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly called the person who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade ‘foolish’ and ‘one bad apple’

    And people made fun of Romney for talking like he was straight out of the 50s.

    norcal (3f02c4)

  61. The senate by voice vote voted to protect these anti-abortion judges. The democrat corporate stooges didnt want to go on record on how they voted. If biden signs this bill he will be even more discredited with the democratic base. The base is fed up with dino establishment corporate stooges like these clowns.

    asset (e177ee)

  62. @62: You are one sick fukk

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  63. @63 Why? Because I loather corporate establishment democrat drones like the bidens, pelosis and clintons more then you do.

    asset (e177ee)

  64. Tulsi has shut up grifter mittens.

    mg (8cbc69)

  65. Joe Biden says he’s Catholic and for no limits on abortion. He won’t criticize the Supreme Court leak, intimidation at Catholic Justices’ homes nor the disruptions at Catholic mass.”

    Never Trump conservative Biden voters getting what they voted for.

    Obudman (929f6c)

  66. I’ll venture that those noisemakers in front of the Justices’ homes may very well have made the Justices rethink their personal views about abortion.

    If you know what I mean and I think you do.

    But I’m sure their legal views will remain the same.

    nk (2443b8)

  67. And I’ll be the the first to admit that I missed the forest for the trees as far as this whole post is concerned. It should be no surprise that weirdos who are fine with killing a million babies a year are also fine with killing four or five old lawyers.

    nk (2443b8)

  68. Encouraging assassinations on social media is pretty much the same fascist mentality as “protesting” in front of private homes, blocking freeways, and shouting down others in restaurants and college forums. The Left has a serious problem with that, but the Right is not immune.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  69. “Joe Biden says he’s Catholic

    Saying you are Catholic is easy. Anyone can do it. Actually being a Catholic is something different.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  70. OT- Squinty talks inflation.

    OMG… it’s 25th amendment time.

    DCSCA (50dab7)

  71. can the teleprompter speak?

    mg (8cbc69)

  72. “Senator Rick Scott, Wisconsin.” – Squinty McStumblebum

    Sen. Scott is from Florida.

    DCSCA (50dab7)

  73. “Each day the crises multiply. Each day their solution grows more difficult. Each day we draw nearer the hour of maximum danger, as weapons spread and hostile forces grow stronger. I feel I must inform the Congress that our analyses over the last 10 days make it clear that — in each of the principal areas of crisis — the tide of events has been running out and time has not been our friend.” – JFK, Catholic Egghead, 1961

    “It’s Putin’s fault.” – Squinty McStumblebum, Catholic Scrambled Egghead, 2022

    It’s 25th amendment time.

    DCSCA (50dab7)

  74. For those with reading comprehension problems:

    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

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  75. The best defense is that the law is unconstitutional, and it may be wrt the court building. But probably not the residence which is intimidating and intended to be so.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  76. I live in a state that is 40% Catholic and whose (Catholic) governor is running for re-election. She recently signed a bill which allows elective abortion at any stage of pregnancy. That last part was not widely reported, but now it will be.

    The percentage of people who favor third-trimester elective abortions is about 15%. Before, this was just posturing, now it is a real choice being made by the state of New Mexico.

    There is at least one clinic in ABQ which performs elective abortions up through 8 months (or sometimes later if they are talked into it).

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  77. Well, any honest judge, who honestly applied First Amendment precedents, would apply strict scrutiny since it infringes on a First Amendment right on its face, and hold that void for vagueness right off the bat.

    And if that’s not enough for some folks, go further and hold that it’s easier for the government to fulfill its compelling interest by telling the governmental agents affected to grow a pair and just go ahead and do their duty like they think they should, rather than to tell the people to shut up when they think that their government is doing wrong and they have no other recourse and it’s only mere speech.

    nk (2ca34d)

  78. And the difference between shouting out of order in a school board meeting and shouting in the street is that school board meetings need to be orderly and there’s no way around it or the school board might as well not have meetings at all.

    nk (2ca34d)

  79. Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges’ Residences “With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge”
    …….
    (After quoting 18 U.S. Code § 1507)

    A similar provision focused just on picketing outside courts …… was upheld in Cox v. Louisiana (1965); and the logic of that decision would apply equally to residential picketing. …….. [UPDATE: Note that U.S. v. Grace (1983), struck down a total ban on demonstrations near the Supreme Court; but the law there was “not limited to expressive activities that are intended to interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice,” as Justice Marshall’s separate opinion noted.] Here is Cox’s logic, which was set forth in a protest of an impending trial, but which I think would apply to protests of an impending appellate decision as well:

    There can be no question that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from the pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create. Since we are committed to a government of laws and not of men, it is of the utmost importance that the administration of justice be absolutely fair and orderly. This Court has recognized that the unhindered and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy. The constitutional safeguards relating to the integrity of the criminal process attend every stage of a criminal proceeding, starting with arrest and culminating with a trial “in a courtroom presided over by a judge.” There can be no doubt that they embrace the fundamental conception of a fair trial, and that they exclude influence or domination by either a hostile or friendly mob.

    There is no room at any stage of judicial proceedings for such intervention; mob law is the very antithesis of due process. A State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence. A narrowly drawn statute such as the one under review is obviously a safeguard both necessary and appropriate to vindicate the State’s interest in assuring justice under law.

    Nor does such a statute infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free assembly. The conduct which is the subject of this statute—picketing and parading—is subject to regulation even though intertwined with expression and association…..
    ………
    We hold that this statute on its face is a valid law dealing with conduct subject to regulation so as to vindicate important interests of society and that the fact that free speech is intermingled with such conduct does not bring with it constitutional protection….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  80. And I miss the good old days when the deepest division in America was people who said “refrigerator” and people who said “icebox”.

    nk (2ca34d)

  81. @82. And I miss the good old days when the deepest division in America was people who said “tastes great” and people who said “less filling”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5P_unnW6Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOVHc4hcCX4

    FIFY 😉

    DCSCA (8e95ac)

  82. The best defense is that the law is unconstitutional……

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 10:20 am

    Well, any honest judge, who honestly applied First Amendment precedents, would apply strict scrutiny since it infringes on a First Amendment right on its face, and hold that void for vagueness right off the bat. ……

    nk (2ca34d) — 5/10/2022 @ 10:32 am

    Based on Cox v. Louisiana it could be found constitutional, but first someone would need to be arrested.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  83. @63 Why? Because I loather corporate establishment democrat drones like the bidens, pelosis and clintons more then you do.

    No, because you advocate murder of judges.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  84. This Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) found the “similar” statute unconstitutional and ruled in favor of Cox, the demonstrator, 7-2 on the three other charges and unanimously on the “similar” statute charge. Is there another Cox v. Louisiana?

    nk (d02dfa)

  85. Based on Cox v. Louisiana it could be found constitutional, but first someone would need to be arrested.

    That would allow demonstrations outside the courthouse, but does not speak to demonstrations outside a judge’s home, which easily becomes intimidation. Consider:

    If there had been protests outside of Judge Ito’s home during the OJ trial, either by a BLM-style group or by people opposed to violence against women, would that be acceptable. If so, where is the line drawn before we get to crosses burning on lawns?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  86. As long as the protesters are peaceful and non-threatening they shouldn’t lose their first amendment rights. If they started acting like, say, anti-abortion protestors outside the businesses and homes of abortion providers, well maybe something different may apply. Perhaps take a page from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_v._Women%27s_Health_Center,_Inc.

    Davethulhu (da3c71)

  87. Both these incredibly out of touch political parties are watering the tree of American Populism. Oppose federally funded abortion? “Give” $30-$40 billion, charged to Uncle Sam’s credit card– to fund civil and military ‘operations’ in Ukraine, where abortion is legal:

    – source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

    DCSCA (b74824)

  88. ‘thulhu,

    I don’t have an issue with most protests outside an official building, so long as access is not blocked and they stay outside. IF they were, say, throwing things at court workers as they attempted to enter the building — something that happens in some union strikes — then it would be a problem. But non-vilent protests need all the benefit of the coubt possible.

    When they show up at homes however, the intimidation is inherent. Like doxxing someone, the “we know where you live” thing is a threat in itself. Sure they might not throw a Molotov cocktail into the house during the protest, but some hothead might come back and do that at night. Again, the threat is inherent in them being there.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  89. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 12:19 pm

    I agree, Kevin. There should be a distinction between public buildings and one’s residence. Residences should be off limits.

    norcal (3f02c4)

  90. @85. “Judge not lest you be judged” – from Christ’s great Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5:3—7:27 ).

    Consider judging these ‘judges’…

    What happened to the Nazi judges?

    https://universalcuriosity.wordpress.com/2019/10/18/what-happened-to-the-nazi-judges/

    DCSCA (b74824)

  91. Judge for yourself: when our society has reached the point where candidates for SCOTUS skirt defining what a woman is out of fear of disqualification or mislead [to be polite] if not outright lie [to be blunt] to inquisitors during confirmation hearings, the pool of people to choose from has been poisoned by politics. It’s a national embarrassment; they’ve become be-robed bureaucrats vying for cushy, lifetime government gigs, that’s all. And now they can’t even keep track of a few pages of paper– yet presume to dictate how 330 million ‘folks’ should live.

    Who leaked Alito’s draft? Nearly 10 days and still a mystery. A group of less than 50 people in a closed system, cloaked in secrecy, and nobody yet named or fired. They’re government bureaucrats now, not ‘judges;’ and judging by their behavior, destroying their own institution from within with incompetence. Just another piece of America crumbling along the spiraling road down to Hell.

    DCSCA (b74824)

  92. My guess is the leak was laundered through several people in a way that can be seen as accidental if you are pre-disposed to think that way.

    steveg (6bc5a3)

  93. I have to believe that Roberts is livid and anyone who did this, be it the janitor or a justice, will be on the pavement as soon as humanly possible. There are things that Roberts can do that would make a guilty justice’s life hell, should they not resign.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  94. My guess is the leak was laundered through several people in a way that can be seen as accidental if you are pre-disposed to think that way.

    “So, Ginny, what do you think of this?”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  95. When those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable. JFK. When 18% of the population in 26 states control 52 senate seats and the relic from slavery the fillibuster so you need 60 votes. You think the other 82% of americans will continue to put up with this undemocratic system for much longer you are mistaken. There will be trouble if new voter restriction laws put in place to stop democrats from voting under the guise of preventing illegal aliens from voting (they don’t as was proven in 2020 election despite trumpsters attempt to find what didn’t exist). The people won’t put up with it!

    asset (51f3d8)

  96. @95. Actions speak louder than words.

    Start with suspending the clerks and all further court operations until the culprit is found. They knew the deal when they signed up: Reisman made it clear to his “clerks”:

    “Any breach of either of these conditions by any one of you, means that you will all be shipped right back here for immediate execution of sentence. You are therefore dependent upon each other. Any one of you try anything smart and the 12 of you get it right in the head.”- Maj. Reisman, [Lee Marvin] ‘The Dirty Dozen’ 1967

    DCSCA (b74824)

  97. @97. They keep watering the tree of American Populism without realizing how deeply rooted it has become. It’s how they got Trump. And it’ll bear fruit for the next populist, too. People have had it with the ‘confluence of incompetence’ from all sides.

    DCSCA (b74824)

  98. This Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) found the “similar” statute unconstitutional and ruled in favor of Cox, the demonstrator, 7-2 on the three other charges and unanimously on the “similar” statute charge. Is there another Cox v. Louisiana?

    nk (d02dfa) — 5/10/2022 @ 11:11 am

    The Court found that the “breach of the peace” statute was unconstitutional as applied to Cox as it gave government officials too much discretion; it did not find the law to be unconstitutional.

    This statute, unlike the two previously considered, is a precise, narrowly drawn regulatory statute which proscribes certain specific behavior. Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236 . It prohibits a particular type of conduct, namely, picketing and parading, in a few specified locations, in or near courthouses.
    …….
    There are, however, more substantial constitutional objections arising from appellant’s conviction on the particular facts of this case. …….. The question is raised as to whether the failure of the statute to define the word “near” renders it unconstitutionally vague. …… While this lack of specificity may not render the statute unconstitutionally vague, at least as applied to a demonstration within the sight and hearing of those in the courthouse, it is clear that the statute, with respect to the determination of how near the courthouse a particular demonstration can be, foresees a degree of on-the-spot administrative interpretation by officials charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing it. It is apparent that demonstrators, such as those involved here, would justifiably tend to rely on this administrative interpretation of how “near” the courthouse a particular demonstration might take place.
    ……….
    Liberty can only be exercised in a system of law which safeguards order. We reaffirm the repeated holdings of this Court that our constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured in a democratic society. We also reaffirm the repeated decisions of this Court that there is no place for violence in a democratic society dedicated to liberty under law, and that the right of peaceful protest does not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may do so at any time and at any place. There is a proper time and place for even the most peaceful protest and a plain duty and responsibility on the part of all citizens to obey all valid laws and regulations. There is an equally plain requirement for laws and regulations to be drawn so as to give citizens fair warning as to what is illegal…..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  99. Roberts won’t find the leaker because he is the leaker.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  100. This Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) found the “similar” statute unconstitutional and ruled in favor of Cox, the demonstrator, 7-2 on the three other charges and unanimously on the “similar” statute charge. Is there another Cox v. Louisiana?

    There were two cases involving Cox. Your link was to Cox I, which dealt with the “breach of the peace” statute as overbroad (conviction reversed 7-2), and I linked to Cox II, which dealt with picketing at courthouse (conviction reversed 5-4), which also was the subject of post 81.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  101. 90. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 12:19 pm

    Again, the threat is inherent in them being there.

    It is in the same category as burning a cross, although what it actually means depends on the atmosphere.

    But there is no reason to go to someone’s home to demonstrate except to intimidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  102. Roberts won’t find the leaker because he is the leaker.

    Oh, c’mon. That’s like Hugh Hefner giving money to Operation Rescue.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  103. There is also a practical consideration, particularly in Pelosi’s encouragement and the DoJ’s inaction. They are poisoning their own well wrt cases before the Court.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  104. See Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003)

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/343

    The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.

    Everything depends upon the culture.

    Similarly, laws requiring disclosure of contributions.

    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

    The State has failed to show a controlling justification for the deterrent effect on the free enjoyment of the right to associate which disclosure of petitioner’s membership lists is likely to have.

    Things are getting tothe point where contributions to certain ballot propositions might fall into the same category. The more any type of “punishment”is done,the tronger the case grows for stopping disclosure.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  105. asset is going to have a very unhappy life if he can’t accept things not going his way.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  106. There should be a distinction between public buildings and one’s residence. Residences should be off limits.

    Depends- there’s a fine line to it; if the “residence” has public/government resources applied to it for day to day operations, it’s not quite wholly a private residence. Trump Tower was blocked off; the Kennedy Compounds in MA and Palm Beach as well back in the day. The issue really comes down to assessing whether or not protests are a clear effort to influence judicial decisions– or something else, like football fans picketing Alito’s house over his obsession with baseball or California wineries angered at Kavanaugh’s obsession with beer. 😉

    DCSCA (b74824)

  107. There should be a distinction between public buildings and one’s residence. Residences should be off limits.

    You mean like the White House?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  108. Yeah, keep on with the intentional misunderstandings guys. It really is convincing.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  109. The White House is a kind of exception, and has a lot of security.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  110. Schumer in 2020 at a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGrzoS9AbE

    Now it’s explained that whirlwind was about politics.

    But Ruth Bader Ginsberg died with enough time left before the election to nominate and confirm her replacement.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  111. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 2:04 pm

    Asset doesn’t believe that change is possible without violence.

    (It’s possible. One just has to put in the hard work to change hearts and minds through persuasion.)

    Asset should change his name to Robespierre, because he apparently doesn’t realize that his fantasy would turn out to be another French Revolution, and all the ugliness that followed.

    norcal (3f02c4)

  112. Jim Miller (406a93) — 5/9/2022 @ 12:06 pm

    Immanuel Kant’s Categorical imperative:

    Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

    That’s the philosophy behind s lot of the crazy environmental or anti-climate change proposals.

    And they are absurd there. Because some things only make sense if it fact everyone is going to do it.

    It’s even causing U.S. corporation to sell off polluting wells abroad — to people who will waste more natural gas.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/climate/oilfield-sales-pollution.html

    Oil Giants Sell Dirty Wells to Buyers With Looser Climate Goals, Study Finds

    ….New research to be released Tuesday showed that, of 3,000 oil and gas deals made between 2017 and 2021, more than twice as many involved assets moving from operators with net-zero commitments to those that didn’t, than the reverse….

    …..For the four years before the Umuechem sale in Nigeria, satellites had spotted no routine flaring from the field, which Shell, together with the European energy giants Total and Eni, operated in the Niger Delta. But immediately after those companies sold the field to a private-equity backed firm, Trans-Niger Oil & Gas, an operator with no stated net zero goals, levels of flaring quadrupled, according to data from the VIIRS satellite collected by EDF as part of the analysis. Trans-Niger said last year it intends to triple production at the field.

    ….According to the EDF research, top buyers in recent years have included state-owned oil and gas corporations such as Indonesia’s Pertamina, Qatar Energy and China’s CNOOC, as well as Diversified Energy, an Alabama-based company that has amassed tens of thousands of aging oil and gas wells across Appalachia.

    ….This phenomenon, where the production of emissions that drive climate change are transferred from one company to another, is also hindering the cleanup of fossil fuel infrastructure.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  113. Asset doesn’t believe that change is possible without violence.

    Sometimes it just takes 50 years.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  114. @115 Change is possible without violence just not probable. Even Dr. king and Gandhi were backed with violence. Dr. king told the power brokers you deal with me or you deal with Malcolm X and after his murder he said you deal with me or you deal with the black armed militants. see: watts, detroit and after his murder half the cities in the country. In the movie Gandhi he was continually trying to stop violence by the indian people. Even an indian army of national liberation led by C K Chandrabose.

    asset (c49284)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3006 secs.