Garland Under Pressure To Enforce Federal Law

[Rightguide]

AG Garland under growing pressure to enforce federal law prohibiting picketing outside justices' homes​

Former Trump AG Bill Barr tells Fox News 'the law is crystal clear'​

By Houston Keene | Fox News

Attorney General Merrick Garland is facing growing political pressure to enforce federal law that prohibits picketing outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes for the purpose of influencing a decision.

Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" 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" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The Biden administration has encouraged protesting outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes over the leaked abortion decision so long as it remains peaceful. Garland's DOJ, meanwhile, has yet to bring any charges against protesters targeting the justices' homes, even after the alleged assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The DOJ's hands-off approach has left critics baffled.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ag-garland-pressure-enforce-federal-law-protesters-justices-homes

 

[HisArpy]

Garland has already shown he won't do anything which goes against the political narrative being pushed by the Left right now.

Interesting question; I wonder what would happen if Kav sued the DOJ for malfeasance and dereliction of duty.

Trial court rules - loser appeals.
Appeals court rules - loser appeals.

Guess who is next in line to decide. Will the SCOTUS decline? Will they decide that the gov has no duty to enforce the law? Will they decide that failure to enforce the law is dereliction and entitles the person to damages for said dereliction? Will it be a unanimous decision, or will one side or the other decide that a law intended to protect them specifically is unenforceable or objectionable?

 

[Rightguide]

Garland has already shown he won't do anything which goes against the political narrative being pushed by the Left right now.

Interesting question; I wonder what would happen if Kav sued the DOJ for malfeasance and dereliction of duty.

Trial court rules - loser appeals.
Appeals court rules - loser appeals.

Guess who is next in line to decide. Will the SCOTUS decline? Will they decide that the gov has no duty to enforce the law? Will they decide that failure to enforce the law is dereliction and entitles the person to damages for said dereliction? Will it be a unanimous decision, or will one side or the other decide that a law intended to protect them specifically is unenforceable or objectionable?

Are you saying they might have a vested interest in the outcome?

 

[HisArpy]

Are you saying they might have a vested interest in the outcome?

I just wonder how much vested interest the other Justices might have in the outcome. It is, after all, their necks on the line if they decide that they're vulnerable to the mob because law enforcement has no duty to enforce the law. It might even result in a rather interesting reversal of SCOTUS precedent...

And yet no one seems to recognize this facet of the issue.

 

[Rightguide]

I just wonder how much vested interest the other Justices might have in the outcome. It is, after all, their necks on the line if they decide that they're vulnerable to the mob because law enforcement has no duty to enforce the law. It might even result in a rather interesting reversal of SCOTUS precedent...

And yet no one seems to recognize this facet of the issue.

I think we could at least expect a 6-3 vote.

 

[ll74]

I'm sure Barr is pushing his representatives to put pressure on Garland as every private citizens should

 

[phrodeau]

That law is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Why would anyone defend it?

 

[HisArpy]

I think we could at least expect a 6-3 vote.

I think the issue has wider ranging consequences than it appears to have should it come down to a divided vote in SCOTUS or in a decision against upholding the law at the lower court levels.

For instance, judges are protected by courtroom security. They are often offered special protection whenever they're threatened. Many have weapons permits issued almost by rubber stamp.

Ruling that the highest justices in the nation don't have any right to special protection against harassment or attempted assassination runs against the grain of all of the special privileges judges routinely get. And, if the SCOTUS justices aren't entitled to any of those special privileges, lower court judges/justices aren't either. The courts would have to end the courtroom security, weapons permits, and special security details for all judges.

It could even be a Constitutional/Civil rights violation for anyone to be charged with a crime for threatening a judge, maybe even assault under color of authority, if the decision were to invalidate the law.

Quite a sticky wicket and yet almost no one seems to care about the possible issues this could raise were Kav to pursue it.

 

[SamSang]

he isnt under pressure

he wont do shit

 

[HisArpy]

he isnt under pressure

he wont do shit

He's a politician. He knows which side of his bread has the butter on it. (For those who don't know; the answer is both sides. And the bread is thick-sliced WHITE bread.)

 

[Crownvic]

Get to work..you dope....

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I’m not sure Garland’s inaction is political. It might be, but he just seems like a low energy guy. Looks tired.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the issue has wider ranging consequences than it appears to have should it come down to a divided vote in SCOTUS or in a decision against upholding the law at the lower court levels.

For instance, judges are protected by courtroom security. They are often offered special protection whenever they're threatened. Many have weapons permits issued almost by rubber stamp.

Ruling that the highest justices in the nation don't have any right to special protection against harassment or attempted assassination runs against the grain of all of the special privileges judges routinely get. And, if the SCOTUS justices aren't entitled to any of those special privileges, lower court judges/justices aren't either. The courts would have to end the courtroom security, weapons permits, and special security details for all judges.

It could even be a Constitutional/Civil rights violation for anyone to be charged with a crime for threatening a judge, maybe even assault under color of authority, if the decision were to invalidate the law.

Quite a sticky wicket and yet almost no one seems to care about the possible issues this could raise were Kav to pursue it.

I see your point but don't see it going that far, Everyone has a fundamental right to self-defense and the equal protection of the law. If there is no law, there will be no law protecting those who are in the business of bringing harm of any sort onto the American people, who will quickly make their own law and enforce it their own way, as we once did before there was organized law in many parts of the country. At that point it becomes a matter of survival. If the left manages to kill one of these Justices, there will be hell to pay politically for the Democrats and their fawning media who have so willingly fanned the flames of hate in this country.

Democrats have to enforce the law or suffer the consequences at the polls. Blatant disregard for the law like we see coming from the AG could be impeachable after November. If it isn't, then we deserve the decline into social chaos we will have perpetuated. Most Americans believe in law and order and the country has yet to address the predations of the left in kind, but it could get to that point real quick if the government fails to enforce the law equally.

 

[Rightguide]

I’m not sure Garland’s inaction is political. It might be, but he just seems like a low energy guy. Looks tired.

He's proving himself to be a weak and malleable political stooge. We can thank our lucky stars that the otherwise useless McConnell kept the son of a bitch off the SCOTUS. Obama had big plans to fuck this country up and still does.

 

[Kindfarmer]

He's proving himself to be a weak and malleable political stooge. We can thank our lucky stars that the otherwise useless McConnell kept the son of a bitch off the SCOTUS. Obama had big plans to fuck this country up and still does.

Your ad hominem bullshit is so tiresome

 

[Kindfarmer]

AG Garland under growing pressure to enforce federal law prohibiting picketing outside justices' homes​

Former Trump AG Bill Barr tells Fox News 'the law is crystal clear'​

By Houston Keene | Fox News

Attorney General Merrick Garland is facing growing political pressure to enforce federal law that prohibits picketing outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes for the purpose of influencing a decision.

Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" 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" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The Biden administration has encouraged protesting outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes over the leaked abortion decision so long as it remains peaceful. Garland's DOJ, meanwhile, has yet to bring any charges against protesters targeting the justices' homes, even after the alleged assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The DOJ's hands-off approach has left critics baffled.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ag-garland-pressure-enforce-federal-law-protesters-justices-homes

Um……….. we have 8,962,412.4 far more important things to do. Jesus. That takes a level of willful ignorance, intentionally obtuse, zero content of character to like, Olympic medal stand levels. nobody has mentioned that kind of thing looks really bad on your résumé? Oh yeah, one other thing. Turn off #NewsForDumbFox.. it’s like FM pop. It makes you dumber every time you do it.!!

 

[PaxNurgle]

Nov 30, 2022: National "Let's resurrect old Rightguide/Counselor706/etc. Threads day!"

Or, in other words, no need to drag this loser back up into the sunlight again. He's gone; let him stay gone.