Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Cotton To Wray: Did Biden DOJ Instruct You Not To Arrest Supreme Court Justices' Home Protesters?" video.

@CHRON-GEN There are a lot of cases that treat those issues. Even a peaceful protest cannot be too close to the house of a judge. If he can hear them while inside, it is likely too close. If he has trouble getting into his driveway, it IS too close. But further down the street it is protected speech, most likely.
3
The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
3
The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This one looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
2
I remember decades of anti-Roe v. Wade, pro-life protests before the Supreme Court. You don't?
1
He proved nothing at all. The key to the law is the word "near." It is nowhere defined by either of them.
1
@KJWEBMEDIA The First Amendment preempts any law to the contrary. The perimeter around a home -- anyone's home -- is larger, and should be, than around the Supreme Court, but it does not extend to infinity. Nor is it based on intent. All the pro-life demonstrators intended to make their views known to the Justices, and had every right to. Too bad we can't handle rights any more.
1
@KJWEBMEDIA The statute he quoted on the poster board says "a building housing a court of the United States." Pause the video and read the whole thing.
1
@KJWEBMEDIA Why is everyone stupid, suddenly? What a luxury.
1
"Near" the court or residence is the key to the statute. Do you see a definition here? The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. Are memories that short? These are two political animals duping you. They have their own interest$ at heart.
1
"Near" the court or residence is the key. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge pro-life protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. All of those protests and rallies were legal. Are memories that short?
1
@jacappy111 reported, blocked
1
"Near" the court or residence is the key to this law. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. People came from all over the country to join pro-life rallies near the Court. These were all legal and First Amendment protected. Are memories that short?
1
I didn't laugh, not exactly. The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
1
"Near" the court or residence is the key. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. Are memories that short?
1
You don't remember all the pro-life protests near the Supreme Court over the last 50 years? They were legal.
1
@randycooper3940 I agree that it should be up for discussion. I am concerned that the First Amendment has been severely undermined, and after what has happened to the Fourth Amendment, I am very leery of enforcing such a law to criminalize all such demonstrations. But that's just my opinion. It needs to be thrashed out. I see your point as well, of course.
1
@randycooper3940 Wrong. The Constitution preempts any law held to be to the contrary, as written OR as applied in a particular case. Hence, the pro-life protesters were never arrested, though they may have been directed away from the immediate vicinity of the Court steps. They relied on the First Amendment to protect them.
1
@randycooper3940 Never mind. Why do you think any law, state or federal is ever struck down as unconstitutional? What does yelling fire in a crowded theatre have in common with political protest? Nothing that can be analogized in actual legal practice. I'm an attorney and you obviously aren't. End of story.
1
@randycooper3940 Intimidation and protest are not the same thing. Intimidation of various sorts is comparable to true threats, or to conspiracy to commit a crime -- it is not protected speech at all. It didn't need a federal statute for that. There is no issue, nothing to legislate about. Read some Nadine Strossen. She wrote a book on hate speech recently, and why the category has no place in First Amendment jurisprudence. It is brilliant.
1
@randycooper3940 Statutes are overturned all the time. I already explained it to you. YOU try to define "near." In front? Blocking access? Or down the block, where you know the demonstration will be seen but is not in any way disrupting the life of the judge -- so that he can choose to ignore it without changing his route or routine? I actually don't agree, ethically speaking, with demonstrating near someone's home, or at a court. But to pretend it is always illegal or can be made illegal or should be made illegal -- nonsense. You don't like reading? What a shame. Well, most people agree with you! In fact, they don't like math, either.
1
@randycooper3940 I'm going to block you. You're wasting my time.
1
@randycooper3940 Nowhere did I say true threats and intimidation were "the same thing." You can't or won't read a post properly, and you think you have a right to tell everyone else what to do, and to tell them they will be or should be arrested on federal offenses. Be careful what you wish for.
1