Probable overturning of Roe v Wade

I completely agree. You should not be allowed to protest outside a judge's or justice's home about a case that has not yet been decided.

Ironically, the statute arguably does not make it illegal. Under 18 U.S.C. sec 1807, it is illegal to picket outside the home of a judge, juror, witness, or court officer with intent to influence that person. The term "judge" is not defined in that section. But the term is defined elsewhere in the United States Code, and it excludes Justices of the Supreme Court. That definition is consistent with how the term "judge" is normally used. If you call a SCOTUS justice "judge", you will almost surely get corrected.

If you use common sense and probable Congressional intent to read the statute, then sure -- it includes SCOTUS justices. But a purely textualist reading would exclude them.

Interestingly, the statute also applies "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" -- a term that does include the SCOTUS. Thus, the protests that regularly occur in the Courthouse plaza are illegal to the extent that they involve cases that aren't yet decided (ignoring First Amendment concerns, of course).

 

So did Twitter shut down these posts?

 

We're all textualists here too...Ironic, no?

 

Lotsa' talk about a slippery slope (If Roe is overturned) towards attacking gay (et al) rights.

But to me, the difference is this: Murdering a viable baby versus what? Two consenting adults getting married? It's not NEAR the same and those who attempt to equate them are deliberately ignoring the life that exists in the womb.

 

They are talking about unrelated topics because they know their rhetoric on abortion is unsupported.

the leak likely helped conservatives. The actual ruling is going to be anticlimactic.

 

Totally agree they should stay away from the judges. It's unfortunate that the Garland nomination skewed the picture. We know that's why they went after Kavanaugh. They've brutalized Thomas over the years, but that's not racism right?

In the end, the Liberals are the same as ever; screaming selfish OCD jerks.

 

Yes, they conflate issues to confuse the populace. They can't discuss viable babies in the womb because they would have to admit they are ignoring science and relegating a viable baby to the moral equivalent of a tonsil.

 

A. Yes there is a lot of talk about slippery slopes.
B. Here's a short list of things I've seen that are in the pipeline from conservative states: Making plan B illegal, IUD's illegal, criminalizing sodomy, same sex marriage, etc.
C. I guarantee you someone will submit a law somewhere limiting interracial marriage (that won't pass).
D. Welcome to Gilead!

 

70% of Americans want some access to abortion.

 

Probably higher for cases of rape and incest. But you know that.

You've made it quite clear how you feel on this but I respectfully disagree. It is all a matter of ones concepts I reckon.

 

I'm in that group but as I said, the time frame must include SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves A baby (not that baby) can live outside the womb even if it requires some tubes. People want science, then eat it.

I also think it would be insane to mess with birth control. That's just over the top zealotry. Maybe they aren't having sex anymore. I'd think the health insurance companies might want to weigh in on that one.

I used to think men who are either too ugly to get laid or had a vasectomy shouldn't have a vote on the matter. The one's that really matter are the one's who have a shot at regular amounts of sex (on a man's needs schedule, not a woman's).

 

"Least moral President"

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo."

Noam Chomsky
1990

Then you have what we know about JFK: WORLD CLASS PHILANDERER AND ADULTERER. But I guess that's just boys will be boys.

 

Not me. I'm an originalist. Textualist means you get to bend the meanings of words around to fit an agenda. Started with Hamilton and Marshall.

 

Only in Critical Progressive Theorist fever dreams.

 

A Sooner is so unworthy of your help. Lol

Either way, I took a look at 28 U.S.C. § 451, and it defines "judge" as you indicated. Would a court apply a definition from a different title of the Code? Maybe, but as you mentioned, that almost surely wasn't the legislative intent. Having said that, I'm sure the defense lawyers would raise the issue. FWIW, there is a place in the law in which the word "judge" refers to Supreme Court justices and lower court judges - Art. III, § 1. That would be enough for them to go with it.

 

Well no problem then as we know Liberals believe heartily in the penumbra... right to privacy and all that you know.

 

Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
I think anything short of giving away birth control is silly IF your intention is to outlaw abortions.

 

Yes. I agree with that. These kind of people don't seem real to me. I can't imagine dealing with them on a daily basis.

 

Actually, the point of textualism is to avoid bending the meanings of words to fit an agenda.

 

I failed that one.

 

Meaning the intent is considered? We probably lost some of that over the years.

 

NJ
I know you mentioned 1807. Not sure but isn't 1507 more applicable to the protestors breaking federal Law?
Bubba will be so upset if he reads this
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
"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 think he meant 1507.

 

1807 or 1507. It is clear you meant 1507

And it seems pretty clear to a ordinary person that THAT Fed code prohibited protesters from Federal Judges homes.

Certainly Dems including FJB and media think it is ok the protest and threaten Justices

 

You sure are critical of minor errors on a message board. This is something short of a real court of law. I will hope someone holds you to the same scrutiny. I didn’t read Nj as defending it but simply pointing to actual legal language that was relevant.

 

You must have missed a post I made years ago:

Hornfans: come for the hot takes by homer fans on longhorn football, stay for the legal chatter by resident constitutional scholars.

 

People can haggle over the nuances, but to me, textualism means interpreting a law based on its objective language rather than things like legislative history (committee reports, comments in the congressional record, etc.). When you define terms, you use the definitions that are provided in the law, and if you don't have that, you use the definition that existed at the time the law was written. Of course, an originalist also looks at what was intended at the time the law was written but is more willing to go outside the text to things like legislative history to determine legislative intent.

At least when looking at the Constitution, liberal judges are willing to "go with the times" and let the definitions and interpretations of words change with the times. In other words, they're literally untethered from legislative intent and effectively untethered from the text. There's little point in even writing the laws down.

95 percent of the time, the textualist and originalist will reach the same outcome, because Congress usually says what it means. Where it gets ugly is when Congress uses sloppy draftsmanship. That'll lead to different outcomes. The originalist will say, "they said X, but they had to mean Y, so we're going to do Y" The textualist will say, "they said X, so we're going to do X." The liberal judge says, "we need to be on the 'right side of history,' so we don't particularly care what you said or what you meant. We're going to do F."

 

They do matter, but lawyers are humans and make typographical errors. I also don't expect the same level of care to avoid them here that one would expect in a courtroom. Personally, I noticed the error, but I knew what he meant.

What would happen in a real courtroom? There's a good chance that nothing would happen. If something did happen, it would probably go something like this.

COURT - Counsel, I notice a reference to Section 1807, but I examined that and don't see how it's relevant to this matter.

NJLONGHORN - Your Honor. That was a typographical error, and I apologize for that. I meant Section 1507. Here's a copy of that for your reference.

COURT - It's alright. Thank you for clearing that up.

And that would pretty much be the end of it.

No, he thinks it does apply to SCOTUS justices. However, he cautioned that in other parts of the US Code, the US word "judge" does not mean "justices." I don't think a court would let that trip it up, but he isn't wrong about it. The definition is there in pretty clear language, and sometimes courts look to how the code defines words in other contexts for guidance.

If you want to talk about partisan Democrats and media figures, that's another matter. All we'd have to do is change the issue and the people protesting, and they'd be viewed as the January 6 rioters, and we would be hearing about this law nonstop until the people were arrested. Impeachment articles would be filed and actively pursued against the be AG if he did nothing (assuming Democrats controlled the House). NJ isn't doing this. He raised a real issue.