Yes, but the intimidation talked about in this law refers to judges, jurors, etc... Not like protesting to get an owner of a business to bake cakes for gay weddings. The law is written specifically for the above.
SCOTUS striking down Roe v Wade?
- Thread starter SCHawkFan
- Start date
It just seems very broad that people on the street in front of a house counts as intimidation to me. Inappropriate and not helpful to the cause, but not intimidation.
I don't know. Put yourself on the receiving end of a very large, angry, and screaming crowd outside of your home with your family inside. That and seeing threats of violence via social media and other places. I'd say that's intimidating.
I guess I haven’t looked at a ton of coverage since the initial reports about this came out. It didn’t seem (pictures only mind you) that the people on the street were especially intimidating or large. Any idea how many people were estimated to have shown up at some of the residences?
Not trying to be a dick, I just haven’t watched a ton of coverage since the initial reporting. I think the people who went to the houses to protest are dumb for doing so, and just gives more fuel to the conservative media to paint all pro-choice people as hysterical.
Couldn't a very large screaming crowd objecting to your stance and being viewed on TV also be intimidating?
But that's not the point you are making. It's that there is a law that prevents anyone from protest or other activity that could be intimidating to judges.
And? That’s what the law says. I’m not going to banter back and forth whether it’s in person or on TV. Personally, I think protests are fine outside the Capital or the Court (obviously without rushing the building and acting a fool like 1/6).
Lol. You were the one who brought up the law and intimidation. I simply pointed out that can be taken even further than going to someone's residence. The law is far to vague.
As I've said, I don't like the protests at their residence either. I don't think it's appropriate and it's counterproductive. But unless there's a law specifically addressing it I don't consider it illegal.
Quite honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if everyone inside the building already knows.
Outside of this instance, major leaks from the SC are few and far between. If nothing else, there are a lot few people involved.
We have no idea who leaked the draft. But as usual, those on the right say it was a liberal judge’s staffer, and those on the left say it was a conservative judge’s staffer.
I’m throughly surprised.
The first part of this is just nonsense. And the real answer is that Thomas has the second amendment case.
You don’t even have to adopt. There are plenty of charities that provide for financially challenged young mothers. Have the protestors kick a few k their way.
You mean like that one girl that goes to college protests(and shits her pants)?
Similar threads
