First EVER Supreme Court Leak: Roe V. Wade overturned

[ll74]

Show us. Then show us where there were laws prohibiting those protests.

You already provided the statute
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-...med-protesters-descended-on-her-home-saturday

There should absolutely be laws against this behavior by anyone

 

[Rightguide]

You already provided the statute
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-...med-protesters-descended-on-her-home-saturday

There should absolutely be laws against this behavior by anyone

That statute applies to the federal court system, its judges, jurors, witnesses, or officers. At least that's my reading of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can see it doesn't apply to election officials.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.

 

[ll74]

That statute applies to the federal court system, its judges, jurors, witnesses, or officers. At least that's my reading of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can see it doesn't apply to election officials.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.

Got it. It should be against the law to protest people at their houses. If it's not, that's a damn shame

 

[Rightguide]

Got it. It should be against the law to protest people at their houses. If it's not, that's a damn shame

I agree, but we kind of know it's not after what has happened to prominent people in the news like Senator Paul, Tucker Carlson, the couple in St. Louis, etc.

 

[ll74]

I agree, but we kind of know it's not after what has happened to prominent people in the news like Senator Paul, Tucker Carlson, the couple in St. Louis, etc.

Yes, I know you focus on the left.

 

[butters]

Which is why every time Dems win the Right hold's their breath until we bow to them and gain nothing in return. What I didn't see in there is anything that states that the SCOTUS has any right to privacy.

indeed
now i'm dead against people being allowed to protest directly outside an individual's home, especially if it incorporates the use of bullhorns, violent rhetoric, implied threat (such as carrying weapons), all of which the right has employed over and over since trump's election. Having said that, i also understand the context of 'if SCOTUS is stripping away our rights to privacy, SCOTUS doesn't deserve to be protected by it either given it's"'not in the Constitution."'

• Law experts say if Roe were overturned because a right to choose an abortion isn't constitutional, other rulings could be next.
• One ruling, in particular, Griswold v. Connecticut, could be at risk because a right to privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

• In the leaked initial opinion, Alito maintained that the right to an abortion was a part of the right to privacy — neither of which are included in the Constitution.

Law experts cautioned that singling out the right to privacy this way exposes a weak spot that could jeopardize more than just abortion rights, including access to birth control pills and emergency contraception as well as marriage equality and gay rights.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, I know you focus on the left.

They do the majority of this shit. If you have other examples, post them.

 

[ll74]

They do the majority of this shit. If you have other examples, post them.

I've provided an example. Protesting at people's houses is not unique to a party affiliation. You just don't think your shit stinks so you only see the other guy's

 

[Sean Renaud]

indeed
now i'm dead against people being allowed to protest directly outside an individual's home, especially if it incorporates the use of bullhorns, violent rhetoric, implied threat (such as carrying weapons), all of which the right has employed over and over since trump's election. Having said that, i also understand the context of 'if SCOTUS is stripping away our rights to privacy, SCOTUS doesn't deserve to be protected by it either given it's"'not in the Constitution."'

I wouldn't be dead against people being allowed to protest in front of people's houses if it was, you know people's houses. I don't know where the justices live, I presume they are all rich, but there is a gap between rich and stupid rich. I presume all nine live in a community where a protest in front of their houses would at least disrupt traffic who did nothing wrong but buy a home next to them. I have pity for their families but to some degree shit happens and some of it happens to them.

I agree with no violent rhetoric and implied threat is one of those odd spots. While obviously some came armed the J6 insurrection was unarmed by and large. I think if once you pick up the flag pole, or my golf clubs. . .well a sufficient number of angry people on lawn is cause for alarm.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Congress voted for the Iraq War because the Bush admin lied to them.

Funny how millions upon millions of rational, sane people in the U.S. and all over the world could figure out the obvious lies of Bush and Cheney but Congress couldn't? The very people who are responsible to declare war abdicated their duty to lying, war mongering, war profiteering, sociopaths. Then refused to prosecute the liars. Save those bullshit excuses for people with gnat level attention spans. That shit ain't selling here.



IRAQ ANTI-WAR PROTESTS AROUND THE WORLD.

New York

London

Hyde Park

Paris

Berlin

Sydney

Tokyo

 

[Wrong Element]

They do the majority of this shit. If you have other examples, post them.

Protests at the homes of people involved in public health were constant in the early days of the pandemic. This was not exactly low-profile.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Will someone please tell that Trumplitard to learn how to resize his dumb irrelevant pics?

 

[anarchoMando]

Name that officer?

What reason should I have to

The attack on the capital is enough

 

[LukSkyFokker]

What reason should I have to

The attack on the capital is enough

He didn't understand his own question.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

 

[phrodeau]

Not a proper artwork for this site, Luk.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I'm grooming Cherubs, yo.

 

[Rotadom]

LIFE covers from 1981 and 1982. Good job, 'murica.

 

[nowisthetime]

These so called conservatives are so vindictive. What gets me, they are so adamant against welfare programs for mothers and children, viable public school systems, making contraceptives easily available, other things that actually benefit society. But hey, "activist" judges!

 

[Tigersman]

Surprising news tonight: Supreme Court decision leaked by someone with access to court files. This is purportedly the first time a decision has been leaked prior to the end of the Supreme Court term.

It overturns Roe V. Wade with Alito authoring the majority decision.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The first time a SCOTUS decision was leaked was in 1852 involving Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. The second leak was in 1919 when a former clerk leaked pending decisions to Wall Street traders. The DOJ indicted him. The third leak was in 1977 involving the Watergate cases. There have been others as well.

 

[pecksniff]

I wouldn't be dead against people being allowed to protest in front of people's houses if it was, you know people's houses.

I at first read that as "against dead people being allowed to protest." Which makes for a much more interesting mental picture.

 

[butters]

alito's former Princeton female classmates penned a letter of disgust about the contents of his argument to overturn roe v wade

“When I read the document – I read all 98 pages of it, and mind you, I’m trained as a scholar of literature and medicine, and I look at nuance. And when I saw that he had smuggled into the document the wording from the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which, as I understand it – now I’m not a lawyer – but isn’t even law yet. And he was referring to unborn children rather than fetuses. I was just stunned,”

"I mean, I have read a lot of medical history going back for doing literature and medicine, and his is like a greatest hits of misogyny.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pinion-a-greatest-hits-of-misogyny/ar-AAXciv6

“We are about to celebrate our 50th reunion — half a century since we graduated from Princeton. As a pioneering class of Princeton women, we find it bitter indeed to see the draft Supreme Court opinion reverse the strides we thought we were making, as part of one of the first classes of Princeton women, towards a world of equity and fairness for women of all races and social and economic positions,” they said.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

'Handmaid's Tale' Protesters Demonstrate Outside Amy Coney Barrett's Home​

Photos and videos posted to social media showed seven people clad in red robes and white bonnets quietly walking around
Barrett's cul-de-sac in Falls Church, Virginia while holding signs. In one video, a participant can be heard saying: "We're not protesting, this is performance art."

Conservative media outlet The Daily Signal reported the demonstration lasted about 10 minutes.

"The right to your own body—to do what you want with your own body—is the most personal freedom you can have,"
one activist told The Daily Signal. "It should be self-evident that it's wrong to force women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy."

 

[LukSkyFokker]

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

alito's former Princeton female classmates penned a letter of disgust about the contents of his argument to overturn roe v wade



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pinion-a-greatest-hits-of-misogyny/ar-AAXciv6

yes, they seem quite displeased. Lol.