Ilhan Omar tweet for the night.

[Eko]

Link to tweet

It is a little hard for me to take the hand-wringing about non-violent protests outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices seriously when the Supreme Court itself ruled protests outside the homes of *doctors who provide abortions* is protected by the 1st amendment.

[FBaggins]

1. Not the best argument

That ruling (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.) balanced the interests of the government in protecting individual safety against first amendment interests and determined that a 300-foot radius of protection was too broad. Not that there could be no restrictions on the protestors. They explicitly did not overturn Frisby (which also limited protests near homes)

The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that

The federal law in question here does not prohibit free speech in general - it specifically prohibits attempts to influence court decisions. That's a substantially more significant governmental interest involved.

And, of course, there are far more justices on the current court that are ideologically similar to those who dissented in Madsen.

[Eko]

2. Frisby upheld the local ordinance.

If there is no local ordinance then there is no problem correct?

[FBaggins]

3. I don't think it had anything to do with whether the law in question was local/state/federal

It ruled that the streets are traditional "public forums" and thus strict scrutiny applied to any law restricting free speech.

Strict scrutiny, as it applies to 1A cases, requires that there be a significant government interest in the restriction... ample alternatives for the communication... and that the ban be content neutral.

The law in question here pretty clearly satisfies all three.

[Eko]

4. If you say so.

In Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a city ordinance that banned picketing in residential neighborhoods.
City banned picketing near residences

Brookfield, Wis., had enacted an ordinance that prohibited picketing “before or about any residence or dwelling.” It did so in response to disruptive tactics used by members of the anti-abortion movement who objected to the abortion practice of Dr. Benjamin Victoria. Demonstrators picketed Victoria’s home for months in 1985.

During this time, the doctor and his family also received death threats. The lower federal courts ruled that the ordinance was too broad and could be interpreted as banning all picketing in residential neighborhoods. They concluded that residential neighborhoods were a public forum from which the city could not bar all picketing.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/477/frisby-v-schultz

[FBaggins]

5. I'm not saying that it wasn't a local ordinance

I'm saying that there isn't any reason to think that the relative level of government issuing the ordinance was relevant to why the court ruled in the way that it did.

IOW - there's nothing in the case that says "it's ok when a town does it, but not ok when a state does it"

[Eko]

6. An ordinance is

a piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority. It does not count in other municipalities. If there was an ordinance for this where the protestors are now then you would have a point.

[FBaggins]

7. Yet there's nothing in the ruling distinguishing the legal principal by ordinance/law

[Eko]

8. If a municipality makes an ordinance that there should be not porn shops

and the supreme court upholds it that doesn't mean that all across America that porn shops are illegal, only in municipalities that have done so.

[FBaggins]

9. True

But also irrelevant

[Eko]

10. Only if the protests going on now

are in a city that has passed that law. Have they? If not then that ordinance is not in effect in that city. Only in ones that have passed it.

[FBaggins]

11. Nope

Once again - nothing in the ruling relied on the level of government that had implemented the legislation.

If they had said "it's ok for municipalities to do this, but not the federal government" you would have a point... but they said nothing of the sort.

Indeed - the Madsen ruling dealt with a court injunction, while the law in question is federal. Why not speculate that all we know is that laws are ok but court injunctions aren't? Heck... it didn't even say that a court can't put protest injunctions into place... just that 300 feet was too large a perimeter.

You continue to argue that only local governments can enact such laws - but have provided no evidence to back it up.

[Eko]

13. Im not arguing that only local governments can enact such laws,

You have yet to show a law that applies to anywhere except for that municipality let alone the one the protests are in, or the state they are in, or the country they are in.

[FBaggins]

15. Then you should delete your #2 before anyone else reads it

You have yet to show a law that applies to anywhere except for that municipality

You must have missed the cited piece of Madsen.

[Eko]

12. You are saying that a local ordinance in Brookfield, Wis upheld by the supreme court

has legal standing in Montgomery County, MD. So if Salt Lake city, Utah passes one outlawing alcohol and the supreme court upholds that it is legal for the city to do that then it is illegal to have alcohol everywhere? Even where there are no ordinances against that?

[FBaggins]

14. You really don't understand how to read SCOTUS decisions, do you?

Yes - if SCOTUS upholds a law passed at any level, the reasoning for that ruling applies anywhere else.

If, as they did in this case, they say that the streets are a public forum... then they are a public forum whether the analysis is applied to a federal law, a state law, or a local ordinance. If the local ordinance has to satisfy a "strict scrutiny" test if it restricts speech in that public forum... then a federal law must satisfy the same standard.

So if Salt Lake city, Utah passes one outlawing alcohol and the supreme court upholds that it is legal for the city to do that then it is illegal to have alcohol everywhere?

No. If the court upholds a SLC ordinance the ordinance still only applies locally. But the rationale for the ruling applies anywhere else. Unless the rationale relies on some factor peculiar to SLC (and neither Madsen nor Frisby do).

You probably don't realize that you're making an extreme version of a republican argument.

[Eko]

16. Yes the rationale for the ruling applies everywhere.

and if cities pass that ordinance then it would be lawful. But you have yet to show that ordinance was passed in MD where the protestors are. If not then it is not unlawful where the protestors are.

[FBaggins]

17. You're still making the argument that you claim you aren't making

There is a federal law (which certainly applies to MD)

[Eko]

19. What federal law?

[FBaggins]

21. US Code 1507

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

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.

[Eko]

22. You bolded the wrong part.

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,
Can you tell me how they are interfering with the the administration of justice?
Can you tell me how they are obstructing with the administration of justice?
Can you tell me how they are impeding the administration of justice?
Can you tell me how they intent on influencing any judge in the discharge of his duty?

[FBaggins]

24. Laughable

Of course they're trying to influence a judge's decision in a case.

But hey... that's a clever attempt to spin off of the rest of the thread. Points for effort.

[Eko]

26. trying to influence a judge

in the discharge of his duty. It does not say what you think it does.

[FBaggins]

28. This I can't wait to hear

Go ahead... tell us how a justice's discharging their duties excludes things like how they rule

[Eko]

30. It doesnt have anything to do with how they rule.

If someone discharges their duties or responsibilities, they do everything that needs to be done in order to complete them.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/discharge
to perform a duty, esp. an official one:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discharge
to do an official task or duty:
discharge a duty/responsibility/obligation
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discharge

Now you have to prove that the protestors have intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding it.
Feel free to prove that. Ill wait.

[FBaggins]

32. "If someone discharges their duties or responsibilities, they do everything that needs to be done

in order to complete them."

Q.E.D.

"to perform a duty, esp. an official one:"

Like deciding a case one way or the other.

It doesnt have anything to do with how they rule.


That's a ridiculous argument. You're saying that the government's interest is not in avoiding mob influence on judicial decisions but.. what exactly? Keeping them from replying promptly to emails? Getting to work on time?

[Eko]

33. Mob influence would be someting with threats right?

Threats that prove intent to have it changed? Can you prove that the protestors have intent to influence it? when it come to the mob they usually need things like recorded conversations, phone calls, things like that to prove intent. What intent do you have proof of?

[Eko]

27. Can you show me a case where someone was charged with violating this law?

[FBaggins]

29. Sure

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/06/99rise-protesters-charged-with-class-a-misdemeanor-in-federal-court/

...On the other hand, I suspect the protesters will have a harder time arguing that they lacked the intent to influence judges in the discharge of their duties...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/supreme-court-protesters-plead-guilty-to-misdemeanor-charges#.jwXgqZjL91

Note that they challenged the constitutionality of the law and lost. And this was long after the two cases discussed above.

[Eko]

31. The 1st one was a protest within the court

and they received misdemeanors. Hardly the same thing. The second one was the same case just the outcome. I can see where doing it in the supreme court would be a violation because it does stop the judicial process, at their homes? Naw.

[Eko]

23. Before you reply back

might want to check out what administration of justice and discharge of duty means.

[FBaggins]

25. Keep digging

[Eko]

18. Just like if they say states can pass laws outlawing abortion.

That does not make abortion illegal in states that have not passed laws making it illegal.

[whathehell]

34. In a courtroom, perhaps...

Last edited Wed May 11, 2022, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

To the general public, I' d guess it rings true.

[TeamProg]

20. NO FUCKING S**T!!!

So what’s the hold up of bringing Senate charges of perjury for SVOTUS judges?

Yes, I know you’re in the House, but come on, spread the word!!

[Budi]

35. I've seen this exact quote throughout soc media since the protests began.

How bout apologize for joining in the mocking & humiliating of the WOMAN who warned us all, when she tried to speak out rather than copy & pasting someone elses meme.

[Eko]

36. If you are talking about Hillary Clinton

I did no such thing. I supported her 100%.

[Budi]

37. I'm not adressing you personally. I'm addressing Rep Omar.

[Eko]

38. Ok

Thanks,
Eko

[calimary]

39. But this is what the bad guys want. Us at each other's throats.

The bad guys are very good at marching in lockstep. Sure wish we were!