Pro-Abortion group hints it will target Justice Barrett's children, home, and church

[Valletta]

This week, Ruth Sent us called for more protests against Justice Barrett.

“If you’re in the DC metro area, join us,” the group wrote on Tuesday. “Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage.”

Protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is supposed to be a violation of federal law, but so far, Attorney General Merrick Garland has refused to intervene in them. Ditto for FBI Director Christopher Wray and other federal law enforcement agencies.
Pro-Abortion Group Drops Hint That It Will Target Justice Coney Barrett’s Children, Home and Church

 

[Yttrium]

There's another thread on this here:
Pro-Abortion Group Wants to Target Amy Coney Barrett’s Children

But yes, this Ruth Sent Us group is bad news, and the FBI should take a look at them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They'll probably get away with it given that the Biden administration has tolerated it at Justice Kavanaugh's house. This despite it being illegal to do said protests.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

They'll probably get away with it given that the Biden administration has tolerated it at Justice Kavanaugh's house. This despite it being illegal to do said protests.

Biden didn't tolerate violence at Kavanaugh's house .

 

[civilwarbuff]

Biden didn't tolerate violence at Kavanaugh's house .

Your supporting evidence......beside your say so......?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Biden didn't tolerate violence at Kavanaugh's house .

But he tolerated protests which are illegal. It's not like I understand. Biden rewards his friends by ignoring when they break the law. He's being a perfect politician.

 

[Valletta]

Biden didn't tolerate violence at Kavanaugh's house .

Joe's not doing anything to speed up the Supreme Court security bill Pelosi and Democrats are holding up in the House.

 

[Valletta]

There's another thread on this here:
Pro-Abortion Group Wants to Target Amy Coney Barrett’s Children

But yes, this Ruth Sent Us group is bad news, and the FBI should take a look at them.

Those protesting outside of the houses of Supreme Court justices need to be arrested now.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This week, Ruth Sent us called for more protests against Justice Barrett.

“If you’re in the DC metro area, join us,” the group wrote on Tuesday. “Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage.”

Protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is supposed to be a violation of federal law, but so far, Attorney General Merrick Garland has refused to intervene in them. Ditto for FBI Director Christopher Wray and other federal law enforcement agencies.
Pro-Abortion Group Drops Hint That It Will Target Justice Coney Barrett’s Children, Home and Church

Why is this group that is promoting violence towards a Supreme Court Justice still active on Twitter?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why is this group that is promoting violence towards a Supreme Court Justice still active on Twitter?

Because left wing violence is 'mostly peaceful'. Uh huh.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Those protesting outside of the houses of Supreme Court justices need to be arrested now.

. ThYes violencele ones need to arrested. But if they are just protesting . No. Personally I don't think they should be able to vote against Row verses Wade.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Personally I don't think they should be able to vote against Row verses Wade.

Huh?.....Who?

 

[Valletta]

. ThYes violencele ones need to arrested. But if they are just protesting . No. Personally I don't think they should be able to vote against Row verses Wade.

It's against the law.

 

[Yttrium]

. ThYes violencele ones need to arrested. But if they are just protesting . No.

There is a law against protesting at the home of a Supreme Court justice with the intent of influencing their vote. They can be arrested regardless of whether they're violent or not. I do think they should be informed of the law first, since it's not well known; then if they don't disperse, they should be arrested.

 

[Blade]

The left go nuts with Jan 6th ..you would think they would be all over this yet oddly not. Hmm wonder why

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

There is a law against protesting at the home of a Supreme Court justice with the intent of influencing their vote. They can be arrested regardless of whether they're violent or not. I do think they should be informed of the law first, since it's not well known; then if they don't disperse, they should be arrested.

So they can move across the street and it will be legal. Right?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why is this group that is promoting violence towards a Supreme Court Justice still active on Twitter?

Which group is that?

 

[KCfromNC]

There is a law against protesting at the home of a Supreme Court justice with the intent of influencing their vote. They can be arrested regardless of whether they're violent or not.

Is this that cancel culture stuff the right has been talking about so much recently?

In any case, reasonable people might disagree on whether a law which was obviously intended to prevent threats against judges or jurors in criminal cases really applies to situations where a political activist Supreme Court is working to enact wildly unpopular legal precedent.

 

[Yttrium]

So they can move across the street and it will be legal. Right?

Sure.

 

[Yttrium]

In any case, reasonable people might disagree on whether a law which was obviously intended to prevent threats against judges or jurors in criminal cases really applies to situations where a political activist Supreme Court is working to enact wildly unpopular legal precedent.

See here:
Is It Legal to Protest Outside Supreme Court Justices' Homes? - FindLaw

The "Picketing or Parading" law states that anyone "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," cannot picket near a judge's residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.

The distinction is important: This law doesn't speak to gatherings of people who protest a court's decision but focuses instead on gatherings that seek to influence a decision. And in this case, with a leaked draft that is not yet final, the appearance of attempted influence is clear.

It's specifically illegal to try to influence the justices' votes by protesting at their homes.