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.
I recently spoke with one of the protest organizers about this to see what she thought -- no names, of course. She said that they were coordinating their protests carefully with the local police to ensure that they remained within the letter of the law.
A lot of work is being done by the phrase "or near" here: how near do you have to be to trigger enforcement? According to her they stay on the correct side of police barricades, where they are told it is ok to protest, and are outside the entrances to the neighborhoods rather than outside the actual homes of the Justices.
It occurs to me on reflection that the Federal law being cited doesn't actually mention Justices anyway. It mentions judges, witnesses, jurors, and so forth. The legislative intent is to protect the integrity of the trial process by preventing intimidation of witnesses, jurors, lawyers and judges. This is because the trial is supposed to be dispassionate in nature; passion is proper to the political branches. The Supreme Court, though, has arguably become a political branch -- indeed, I think it would be hard to argue any other view. If and insofar as it has, it must be subject to the First Amendment's 'free speech / free assembly / right to petition for redress of grievance' guarantees as any other political branch.
11 comments:
I believe the Court formally requests that kind of input in the form of amicus briefs. Even if one considers lobbying the Court in other ways to be proper, loud protests outside a residence don't seem to be the way to impart useful information. The message "we know where you live" is most often associated with mobsters.
Well, I agree that it's unwise, inappropriate, and unlikely to be effective. All I'm saying is that I can see the argument that it's not illegal.
In a corollary, nobody ever protests outside mobsters homes.
Curious.
That's a very good point.
the Federal law being cited doesn't actually mention Justices anyway.
From Merriam-Webster: judge especially : a judge of an appellate court or court of last resort (as a supreme court) // a supreme court justice
This is a quibble that's very unlike you.
The Supreme Court, though, has arguably become a political branch -- indeed, I think it would be hard to argue any other view.
The Supreme Court--the Judiciary branch in general--was not designed to be political, quite the opposite. The correct answer to the drift, if and insofar as it has drifted, is not to meekly accept the drift and to allow it to continue, but to push the Court back to its independent-of-politics purpose of adjudication and law/Constitution application. Much progress has been made in that direction by getting judges--including Justices--appointed who do put aside their personal agendas, their personal views of the "needs of society," and adjudicate on the basis of what the statute/Constitution actually say.
...I can see the argument that it's not illegal.
On the basis of what court ruling, exactly? Or what legislation enacted that amended or withdrew 18 USC 1507? Until one of those occurs, it is, of course, the law, and protests that violate it are illegal. Or are we now to become a nation of men and not of laws, a nation where individuals pick and choose which laws are to be followed and which to be ignored as inconvenient to us?
If short of that, they wish to plead civil disobedience, they must face trial, and if convicted, be punished. Anything less than that shows them to be petty lawbreakers. Or violent ones, if the "nice house you got there," "we know where your kid is" protests proceed further.
Eric Hines
The Supreme Court has become more political, but i think we should fight tooth and nail to slow that down as much as we can. If it ends up being a mere affectation, a performance of dispassion when that reality has fled, I accept that. It's better than the alternative.
"If it ends up being a mere affectation, a performance of dispassion when that reality has fled, I accept that. It's better than the alternative."
Maybe I read that wrong. Are you saying pretty lies are better than grim truth?
The Court has always been political. Every President who gets to make a selection to the Court, wants it to be a member of "his team." For a long time, most of the Justices have come from the more liberal side of the aisle.
The Dems fight tooth and nail for their selectees, while the Reps usually always compromise on theirs, ergo John Roberts.
We just got lucky that Trump had three decent selections and was able to get them over the finish line.
All courts have always been tempted to be political, and often succumb. The law against protesting at their homes nevertheless is an attempt to uphold the standard against succumbing. I can't go along with undermining the law on the ground that the effort is hopeless. The clear intent of organizing a riot near a home is not to persuade but to intimidate. If they wanted to persuade, they could pursue the appropriate channel of an amicus brief, where threats are not tolerated, decorum is observed, each author is accountable for his words, and life is not made impossible for an entire residential neighborhood merely to accommodate poor impulse control by aggrieved, inarticulate, and ill-informed citizens.
I wouldn't personally demonstrate outside a legislator's home, either, but I can live with that being legal, as long as the neighbors and family are reasonably protected.
This is a quibble that's very unlike you.
I wasn't trying to quibble. There strikes me to be a substantial difference between the Justices of the Supreme Court, whose offices are defined by the Constitution and whose powers have come to be that of a rolling committee on amending that constitution, and the lesser courts who are established by Congress (per the Constitution) and which hear and try cases.
Even the higher appellate courts are charged with applying the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, not creating new interpretations (whether or not they abide that charge). The Supreme Court isn't just different by degree, it's different in kind -- especially since its arrogated power to define and amend the Constitution at will has become accepted.
In that case, you should be against lifetime tenure as well, shouldn't you?
Post a Comment