High court marshal seeks enforcement of anti-picketing laws
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) The marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court has asked Maryland and Virginia officials to step up the enforcement of laws she says prohibit picketing outside the homes of the justices who live in the two states.
For weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed Justices homes, Marshal Gail Curley wrote in the Friday letters to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and two local elected officials.
Curley wrote that Virginia and Maryland laws and a Montgomery County, Maryland, ordinance prohibit picketing at justices homes, and she asked the officials to direct police to enforce those provisions.
Justices homes have been the target of protests since May, when a leaked draft opinion suggested the court was poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.
FILE - U.S. Marshals patrol outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in Chevy Chase, Md., June 8, 2022. The Marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court has asked Maryland officials to step up the enforcement of laws she says prohibit picketing outside the homes of the justices who live in the state. The request came about a month after a California man was found with a gun, knife and pepper spray near the Maryland home of Kavanaugh after telling police he was planning to kill the justice. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-larry-hogan-maryland-c302461b0cbce9929f1ace32cfdaf686
bucolic_frolic
(43,146 posts)NotHardly
(1,062 posts)... or, ask him how things are going at the picketing at Planned Parenthoods ... tell him the Justices get equal time
delisen
(6,043 posts)delisen
(6,043 posts)The judges hiding behind the Marshall should be ashamed of themselves. If they reside in Maryland they need to petition Maryland themselves.
bringthePaine
(1,728 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)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....
ancianita
(36,048 posts)Poltroons indeed!
paleotn
(17,912 posts)Magoo48
(4,708 posts)mrsadm
(1,198 posts)reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... in residential areas. Under these laws, protesting is allowed, but the protesters have to keep moving along the public right of way - they can't stop and congregate right in front of the residence.
At least that is my understanding.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Now they're whining more about the peaceful exercise of the first amendment . The Justices are free to more to other accommodations.
intheflow
(28,463 posts)Just like they tell women if they dont like the new abortion laws, they can move to another state. Whats good for the goose
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)perhaps a different country.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Most tyrants have their own judicial lackeys, and true democracies wouldn't want them anywhere near. Their only option would be some "shithole country."
DBoon
(22,363 posts)and with their politics, they would fit in perfectly
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)summer_in_TX
(2,735 posts)they can revisit the case (or take a similar one) where they made it LEGAL to picket at someone's private home (unless the city had enacted a ban).
Why on earth did they not recognize that allowing picketing at homes also allows political intimidation?
Political intimidation has gotten out of hand.
Free speech doesn't mean it must be allowed in non-public places, but that should be consistent for everyone, not just the extremes.
I'd hate to have chanting mobs surrounding my home screaming at me. Or even well-behaved mobs. But their own decisions allowed it in many circumstances.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)It hasn't even really begun. Real political intimidation would have made one or two (or three??) of those fuckers change their vote(s).
It's time we Democrats stepped up our game. We're way behind.
cloudboy07
(351 posts)live with it !
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)make their neighbors housing values go down.
Mysterian
(4,587 posts)as they issue decrees from on high!
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)outside of supreme court justices' homes, it's important to remember that in the 90s the court held that protesting outside of the homes of abortion clinic employees is protected by the first amendment.
Response to aggiesal (Reply #15)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
paleotn
(17,912 posts)a la the home of Thomas Hutchinson, then Lieutenant governor of the Massachusetts colony.
sinkingfeeling
(51,448 posts)summer_in_TX
(2,735 posts)3Hotdogs
(12,374 posts)Its ok to picket outside of elected office holders houses?
plimsoll
(1,668 posts)1) Don't the people who are protesting the Roe reversal have free speech rights?
2) If those states don't want to enforce those rules isn't that their right?
DBoon
(22,363 posts)start prosecuting these first and maybe you won't look so concerned with protecting privilege
Grins
(7,217 posts)But not DC? Do other states have that same law?
Maybe the problem is Virginia and Marylands overreaching?
Why should the homes of Supreme Court justices be singled out and not the homes of other judges? Or the homes of the Secretaries of State of Vermont, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia? How many of them, with damn good reason, and FAR MORE than SCOTUS justices, were scared for their lives and their families? How about teachers and local school board members who heard, We know where you live!!!
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)I feel like they are in far more actual danger than the lyin 6
And yet i have a sneaking suspicion they get significantly less actual protection.
pfitz59
(10,376 posts)the people will not be silenced
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)Link to tweet
The First Amendment Retweeted
Link to tweet
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)Supreme Court marshal asks Md. leaders to enforce anti-picketing laws
Letters asks Gov. Hogan and Montgomery County Executive Elrich to have police departments enforce laws that "squarely prohibit picketing at the homes of
Link to tweet
Supreme Court marshal presses Md., Va. leaders to stop home protests
Some officials push back against directive, calling it unconstitutional
By Jasmine Hilton and Ann E. Marimow
Updated July 2, 2022 at 4:42 p.m. EDT | Published July 2, 2022 at 12:07 a.m. EDT
Abortion rights demonstrators protest near the Chevy Chase home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on Saturday, in response to letters from the Supreme Court marshal. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
The Supreme Courts chief security officer penned letters requesting that top Maryland and Virginia officials direct police to enforce laws that she says prohibit picketing at justices suburban homes, following weeks of demonstrations for abortion rights. ... It was unclear, however, what impact the letters will have. Some officials argued that federal law enforcement should respond to the courts concerns, while others cast the directive as unconstitutional. Police officials said they worked to keep justices safe while respecting the First Amendment rights of demonstrators. And protesters responded directly Saturday with an impromptu demonstration outside Justice Brett M. Kavanaughs home in Chevy Chase.
Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, in four separate letters addressed to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D), Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeffrey McKay (D), said protests and threatening activity had increased since May at the justices homes. ... For weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed Justices homes in Maryland, her letter to Hogan said. Earlier this week, for example, 75 protesters loudly picketed at one Justices home in Maryland for 20-30 minutes in the evening, then proceeded to picket at another Justices home for 30 minutes, where the crowd grew to 100, and finally returned to the first Justices home to picket for another 20 minutes. This is exactly the kind of conduct that the Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit.
[Youngkin, Hogan ask Justice Dept. to halt protests at justices homes]
The marshal cited Maryland law, which states that a person may not intentionally assemble with another in a manner that disrupts a persons right to tranquility in the persons home and that law provides for imprisonment for up to 90 days or a $100 fine. ... The Maryland letters, reviewed by The Washington Post and dated July 1, also cite a Montgomery County law that says a person or group of persons must not picket in front of or adjacent to any private residence, as well as a law that says a group can march in a residential area without stopping at any particular private residence. ... But Michael Ricci, Hogans director of communications, pushed back against Curley in a response Saturday afternoon on Twitter. Had the marshal taken time to explore the matter, she would have learned that the constitutionality of the statute cited in her letter has been questioned by the Maryland Attorney Generals Office, he wrote.
Link to tweet
We are within the law, protester Nadine Seiler said. Theyre proving us right that we need to be out there to maintain our First Amendment right, or else we wouldnt have it. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
Ricci noted that Hogan and Youngkin had written previously to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the clear and unambiguous federal statutes on the books that prohibit picketing at judges residences. Garland declined, Ricci said.
{snip}
Gift Article
https://wapo.st/3nCcTBw
By Jasmine Hilton
Jasmine Hilton is a reporter covering crime and courts on the Metro desk. Twitter https://twitter.com/jas_hilton
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Don't more guns make them safer?????
How come they agree with banning guns in government buildings? Wouldn't guns make their buildings safer?
dlk
(11,561 posts)The Supreme Court has already given over womens reproductive rights to the states, another clear sign of fascism.
Magoo48
(4,708 posts)dlk
(11,561 posts)The fascists are here.
malthaussen
(17,193 posts)You don't want protesters outside your houses, don't piss off the people.
-- Mal
nvme
(860 posts)pressbox69
(2,252 posts)Not the black robed sheeple.
pressbox69
(2,252 posts)I thought they were cool with "Legitimate Political Discourse."
Higherarky
(637 posts)of public servants wanting/having stuff, paid for with tax-payer funds, that they don't want to provide for the taxpayers! Protection, healthcare, sufficient retirement income; the list goes on and on. Taxpayers pay their salaries, while way too many of them act as if they were the bourgeoisie.
jaxexpat
(6,820 posts)Katcat
(231 posts)Not so supreme, super court justices prefer that people drive by blowing car horns all day and night?
raising2moredems
(638 posts)Actions have consequences. And judges don't have more rights than any other person in the US. Just do a internet search on the harassment/picketing of reproductive services providers OR election officials.
2live is 2fly
(336 posts)home told police he was planning to kill the justice. Yeah right, promises promises!
delisen
(6,043 posts)All public service comes with the cost of criticism and is subject to peaceful protest.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,955 posts)If they're good enough for our school children, they're good enough for SCOTUS.