Republicans on Supreme Court want Americans arrested for practicing their 1st amendment rights

[RAB910]

WASHINGTON — Gail Curley, the Supreme Court’s marshal, has written to the governors of Maryland and Virginia and local officials in suburban Washington, D.C., asking them to enforce state and county laws that prohibit picketing at private homes.

In the letter to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, she said laws in his state prohibits assembling “with another in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home,” and provides a penalty of up to 90 days in jail.

When the demonstrations began, after the draft Supreme Court abortion opinion was leaked in May, Hogan said he was “deeply concerned” that hundreds of people were picketing outside the homes of some justices who live in his state.

“Since then, protest activity at justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased,” Curley said in the letter, with large groups using bullhorns and banging drums. “This is exactly the kind of conduct that Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-asks-maryland-officials-stop-picketing-justices-houses-rcna36460

[malaise]

1. Get thee to the greatest page

RFN!

[The Magistrate]

2. Citizens Are Free To Exercise 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights Under Our Constitution

I fail to see what makes these particular poltroons immune from hearing the voice of the people up close and personal and backed by some firepower, all night long and all the day through....

[RAB910]

3. The sick anti-American monsters on the court believe

they believe "well regulated" should be ignored in the 2nd amendment and they don't care how many Americans should be killed to allow all to have as many guns as they want including criminals, the mentally ill, and terrorist

when it comes to the 1st amendment they believe their right to peace and quite (not a right in our Constitution) trump the right of Americans to have free speech and the right to protest

[milestogo]

4. When you disrupt millions of lives, you surrender your right to tranquility.

[mopinko]

5. no more self awareness than a dog licking it's asshole in the middle of the sidewalk.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. Where is this "right to tranquility" enumerated?

Hint: Outside of the preamble, "tranquility" isn't mentioned at all.

Maybe it's in their "special" copy of the Constitution. You know, the one that omits any mention of "well regulated militias" and the like.

[snowybirdie]

7. I don't give a fig

about the tranquillity of the fascist five, but they do have neighbors who shouldn't have to be subjected to the noise and disruption. Better picketing should be done wherever they speak. Disrupt that every time. And perhaps they won't be invited any more?

[intheflow]

8. It was a neighbor who started the protests outside

Kavanaugh's house, if I remember correctly. Also, 20 minutes of picketing and chanting per location, during daylight hours, is hardly disruptive. Annoying to some, I'm sure, but I get annoyed by my neighbors' incessant use of power tools for home improvement and maintenance, all day, every day. That droning motor noise interrupts my backyard summers to the point I can't even sit in the yard some days. Cry me a river, SCOTUS - if you don't like the heat, get out of the damn kitchen.

[onecaliberal]

9. 👆🏻👆🏻

[snowybirdie]

10. One neighbor several weeks ago

Has grown into hundreds all the time. If you lived next door would you want to have to negotiate this daily? Protest is for the doers, not Innocent people who just have happened to live on the block. Get them where they work and get those who pay to listen to their drivel.

[intheflow]

12. Oh, okay.

You must have loved Dubya’s “Free Speech Zones.” Their concept with that was, “The Peoples’ right to protest doesn’t mean the government needs to listen.” Hence, these zones are far away from anywhere we can see or hear them.” With fencing barriers all around the SCOTUS building, same thing. The whole point of protesting is to force them to be responsive to We the People, which can only happen if it’s impossible to ignore. The justices are free to close their blinds and crank up the tv if their little snowflake asses are disturbed.

Also, point of fact: it’s not the neighbors who asked the SCOTUS Marshall to have the towns enforce no protesting law.

[snowybirdie]

13. You know nothing

about me. Have a wonderful Sunday.

[gulliver]

11. People's homes (left and right) are off limits.

I'm for heavy fines or jail time for people who protest outside the home of someone they're against. Protest where they work all you want. Once we start to work on federal legislation to ensure reproductive freedom, do we want people "protesting" outside our Dem leaders' homes? This is definitely about rights and how they're balanced. Everyone knows, for example, that a protester who insisted on going into a public school and protesting outside the classroom of a political opponent's child would not be protected by the 1st Amendment. At least I hope everyone knows that.

As I've noted before, protest is essentially always worse than useless these days. You just get a mix of sincere, peaceful, well-spoken folks and, unfortunately, a bunch of odious opportunists. And it's the odious opportunists who invariably make the news. Protesting outside a SCOTUS justice's house is worse than worse than useless. It makes people want to be against reproductive freedom while also being a civic foul.

[snowybirdie]

14. Thank you

You've stated it so well.