Has anyone read the law passed by the Senate to extend protection to the Supreme Court?

[Baitball Blogger]

Are we now forbidden from exercising our free speech to criticize them? What is the extent of their new protections?

[FBaggins]

1. It passed unanimously

The chance that it keeps you from exercising your right to protest is pretty slim.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. What about those who are standing outside their homes?

[Irish_Dem]

8. Probably sent to Russian re-education camps.

[FBaggins]

10. What about them?

They can’t criticize a decision without protesting at their families’ homes?

That’s an odd notion of free speech you have.

[LeftInTX]

14. As long as protesters stay off private property etc

Judges generally don't have public data that can ID their residence. However, there are work arounds(such as obtaining a spouse's address) and that is probably how protesters found their homes.

In Texas all judges and law enforcement are not in any public database.

I think the protests spooked them

[Baitball Blogger]

31. I think what should worry them is that their neighbors came out and let them know what

they think of them by supporting the protests.

I don't know why Alito and Kavanaugh should feel comfortable and safe in blue communities, when they are working so hard to make it a hostile environment for those of us who live in Republican led states. It's a taste of the world they're creating for all Americans.

[LeftInTX]

35. I'm sure they already know their neighbors' political leanings.

However, it was nice of the neighbors to welcome the protesters. Instead of us against them, it is more like community bonded for a common cause.

[Polybius]

30. Fuck 'em n/t

[NYC Liberal]

3. It extends security protection to the immediate family of justices.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4160/

[bigtree]

28. none of those family members needed additional protection

...this is effectively about the SCOTUS members' homes...and sidewalks.

[NYC Liberal]

29. Oh I agree.

[keithbvadu2]

4. Submit a rider that abortion clinics get the same degree of protection.

Submit a rider that abortion clinics get the same degree of protection.

[Irish_Dem]

5. I wish they would rush so fast to protect all Americans.

Not just the GOP elite.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Right?

[SheltieLover]

11. Exactly!

[leftstreet]

13. +1

[uponit7771]

15. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾

[onenote]

7. This is the bill.

https://aboutblaw.com/2Ub

It is a parallel provision to the existing provision authorizing protection of the families of members of Congress:

2 USC 1966

Subject to the direction of the Capitol Police Board, the United States Capitol Police is authorized to protect, in any area of the United States, the person of any Member of Congress, officer of the Congress, as defined in section 4101(b) of this title, and any member of the immediate family of any such Member or officer, if the Capitol Police Board determines such protection to be necessary.

[Hoyt]

9. Glad Senate voted for Democrat Coons' bill. It will help Democratic Justices too.

We can still hate on white wing Justices.

[uponit7771]

16. Madsen v. women's health center (1992) allows protestors at abortion clinic workers houses why

... should the SC be any different?

They're reaping what they sew ...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-880#:~:text=approaching%20patients%20within%20a%20300%2Dfoot%20radius%20of%20the%20clinic%2C%20and%20protesting%20within%20a%20300%2Dfoot%20radius%20of%20staff%20residences

[onenote]

25. Not similar laws.

The portion of the law struck down in Madsen imposed a blanket buffer zone the within 300 feet of the residence of a clinic worker.

This law gives the Supreme Court police the same authority to protect members of a Justice's family, where the Marshal of the Supreme Court determines such protection is needed, as already exists for the Capitol Hill police to protect members of the families of members of Congress.

It doesn't directly impinge on speech the way the legislation in Madsen did.

[uponit7771]

26. thx

[Hoyt]

27. That's would be wrong too. Although from your link, I'm not sure that is how SC ruled.

"In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court found that the state of Florida could only restrict protesters to the extent necessary to allow the clinic to run and the staff to live in their homes without interference."

Further reading, seems to indicate the SC ruled 300 feet (that's a football field) was too broad, but presumbably a lesser boundry -- say 200 feet -- might be OK.

[Sgent]

12. It is probably bad law

in light of Madsen v. women's health center (1992) which allowed protestors at abortion clinic employees houses.

[uponit7771]

17. +1,

[onenote]

23. Is it a bad law to protect families of members of Congress?

2 USC 1666:

"Subject to the direction of the Capitol Police Board, the United States Capitol Police is authorized to protect, in any area of the United States, the person of any Member of Congress, officer of the Congress, as defined in section 4101(b) of this title, and any member of the immediate family of any such Member or officer, if the Capitol Police Board determines such protection to be necessary."

Yesterday's action by the Senate amends an existing provision addressing the protection of members of the Supreme Court so that it also extends to families:

40 USC 6121 (new language shown in bold)

"...the Marshal and the Supreme Court Police shall have authority...
(2) in any location, to protect—
(A) the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and any official guest of the Supreme Court; and
(B) any officer or employee of the Supreme Court while that officer or employee is performing official duties;
(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.’’.

[Sgent]

36. Probably

I don't know why members of congress or judges would be more protected than abortion clinic employees. There has only been 1 judge killed and 1 congresswoman injured (in the same incident, not at house or office) since the 1992 SCOTUS decision that allowed protesting at employees houses and almost three dozen employees have been killed (not all at their house).

[onenote]

37. Arguably no new law is needed.

This law has been on the books since 1950:

18 USC 1507

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.

[hamsterjill]

18. It is absurd and sad

That Dems were so quick to worry about this. They should have allowed this to stew for a while and let the crazies like Kavanaugh and Thomas think about the consequences of their actions.

Why should Dems be so willing to fix a problem that these Republican, lying justices created?

Very disappointing.

[Baitball Blogger]

32. Let them live in the same kind of environment that so many of us are living

in Republican controlled States.

[hamsterjill]

34. Like Texas?

You’re right. I get up scared to death every morning wondering what shoe is going to drop today.

Will I have electricity because the grid may fail?

Will I have food because Abbutt may hold the trucks at the border hostage.

I’m too old to be affected by abortion but my daughter isn’t. She has a medical condition and if she gets pregnant, she could die. That’s a little stressful, wouldn’t you think?

And so on, and so on. So hell yes. Let the justices have a little stress and see how they like it

[Emile]

19. Well lets see how they vote today on the right to privacy

for women!

[Tickle]

20. Who's voting today? Nt

[Emile]

21. The senate.

[Emile]

22. My bad, it's Wednesday when they vote to codify.

I was thinking it was today

[Shrek]

24. Quick unanimous action with regard to Virginia Thomas

I guess.

[Baitball Blogger]

33. Hmmm...

I really don't see anyone taking the time to harm Ginni Thomas. It's too much fun watching her self-implode.