Pelosi & DUI Hubby Cavort at Italian resort

[Poor Richard Saunders]

statute is clear and expansive even to juries their signage is clear (some even threatening signs) the fact we almost had an assassination is clear.
They can use their free speech rules anywhere but near a judges/court officer/ jury member home .. whether it extends past a courts term is unclear

But use some common sense -this is an attempt to sway = and the statute is saying no dice

An attempt to sway? ROFLMAO. That and $7 will get you a Latte. It won't get you a conviction under the statute.

When it extends past a court's term a court can still change it's mind? ROFLMAO.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pobre, Pobre, Pobre...the word "excessive" was in the post about Mr. Pelosi, the drunk.

I responded to you now about your erroneous post asking how a S.C. justice could be influenced "after the decision was already made."

How old are you, Pobre?

Good grief.

And you changed the subject after it was evident you were a fool. But even after changing the subject it is still evident you are a fool. I'm old enough to recognize childish tactics on your part. If you can't address how wrong you were on Pelosi, can we expect you to address how wrong you are on anything?

 

[dukkha]

An attempt to sway? ROFLMAO. That and $7 will get you a Latte. It won't get you a conviction under the statute.

When it extends past a court's term a court can still change it's mind? ROFLMAO.

read the statute it's an attempt to sway, whether successful or not - it's against the statute

Protests were during the term. there is a new law you should read upon if Pelosi ever deigned to pass it

 

[Theywillneverlearn!]

Looks like a bunch of old milk cows....

I can see why her husband drinks. Can you imagine seeing that naked?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

read the statute it's an attempt to sway, whether successful or not - it's against the statute

Protests were during the term. there is a new law you should read upon if Pelosi ever deigned to pass it

Funny, the statute doesn't say anything about attempt to sway...

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,

The statute states "intent to influence a judge in the discharge of his duty." What is the duty of a judge? The duty of a judge would be to rule based on the facts and the law and yet you have judges with differing opinions. In the case of the USSC court the court often has majority and minority opinions. Are you saying one opinion is a judge failing to discharge his duty? If a judge sees facts differently were they influenced in their duty? If they decide based on the arguments presented to change their opinion did they suddenly not perform their duty? Is the duty of the judge to only rule one way or can a judge see facts differently.

Does a judge discharge their duty if they ignore facts given to them? Does a judge discharge their duty if they use facts not presented to them during the arguments on the case? Telling a judge that this fact presented is more important than another fact would not be an attempt to influence their discharge of duty since the judge's duty is to weigh those facts.

 

[dukkha]

Funny, the statute doesn't say anything about attempt to sway...



The statute states "intent to influence a judge in the discharge of his duty." What is the duty of a judge? The duty of a judge would be to rule based on the facts and the law and yet you have judges with differing opinions. In the case of the USSC court the court often has majority and minority opinions. Are you saying one opinion is a judge failing to discharge his duty? If a judge sees facts differently were they influenced in their duty? If they decide based on the arguments presented to change their opinion did they suddenly not perform their duty? Is the duty of the judge to only rule one way or can a judge see facts differently.

Does a judge discharge their duty if they ignore facts given to them? Does a judge discharge their duty if they use facts not presented to them during the arguments on the case? Telling a judge that this fact presented is more important than another fact would not be an attempt to influence their discharge of duty since the judge's duty is to weigh those facts.

what in gawds name are you rambling on about?
Your "issue" is i used the word "sway" "instead of "influence" DUH..
WTF you are trying to conflate- here those are legit courtroom procedures or case rulings
Which is not the same as intent to influence at at jurors house.

Your pretzel logic is only getting you bent, the statute is clear

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

what in gawds name are you rambling on about?
Your "issue" is i used the word "sway" "instead of "influence" DUH..
WTF you are trying to conflate- here those are legit courtroom procedures or case rulings
Which is not the same as intent to influence at at jurors house.

Your pretzel logic is only getting you bent, the statute is clear

You seem to not understand the difference between a judge's duty and a judge's ruling. One can sway a judge's opinion without swaying their duty.

You are right, the statute is clear...

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,

 

[zymurgy]

I've heard of resting bitch face, but she needs a new title for that fucking scowl ever present on her

 

[BidenPresident]

https://nypost.com/2022/07/05/pelosi-dui-hubby-cavort-at-italian-resort-owned-by-andrea-bocelli/

"Let them eat cake!"

The Pelosis may want to skip the wine-tasting this time.

A little more than a month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was busted for DUI in California — leaving him facing jail time — the multimillionaire couple was spotted at a ritzy resort on the Italian seaside owned by legendary tenor Andrea Bocelli.

The Post exclusively obtained photos of the couple — Nancy dressed in all white with Paul clad in dark shorts and shirt — hanging with Bocelli, his wife, Veronica Berti, and others at the Alpemare Beach Club.

Is there a point to this thread?!

 

[dukkha]

You seem to not understand the difference between a judge's duty and a judge's ruling. One can sway a judge's opinion without swaying their duty.

You are right, the statute is clear...

gawd almighty you are dense.
Do you thuink SCOTUS judges only perform their duty at the Supreme Court?
of course not

The statute even specifically enumerates "residence" - so obviously a judge may work on his opinion at home.
if you want to argue if the protests are stationary, you at least would have a leg to stand on
but residences are protected from targeted protests

Take your shitty attitude elsewhere and learn the plain meaning of the statute .
do the google fool.

Fact-check: Is it legal to protest outside justices’ homes? The law suggests no
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

"Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

gawd almighty you are dense.
Do you thuink SCOTUS judges only perform their duty at the Supreme Court?
of course not

OK what duty does the judge perform at home that a protestor can influence? What day they take the trash out is not a judicial duty.

The statute even specifically enumerates "residence" - so obviously a judge may work on his opinion at home.
if you want to argue if the protests are stationary, you at least would have a leg to stand on
but residences are protected from targeted protests

You keep ignoring the entire law. You don't get to pick only part of it. Residences are protected from protests intending to influence a judge in the discharge of his duty. Writing an opinion at home doesn't suddenly cause the protest to attempt to influence his duty.

Take your shitty attitude elsewhere and learn the plain meaning of the statute .
do the google fool.

I am not the one ignoring the language of the statute.

Fact-check: Is it legal to protest outside justices’ homes? The law suggests no
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/

The law suggests? I guess even the statesman is admitting that it is not clear that all protests are illegal.

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

Care to provide your survey of legal experts that shows they all agree?

"Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.

You really need to start reading more than just one sentence in anything you link to.

But claiming this section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation, Eidelman said.

"That reading would unconstitutionally limit people’s ability to protest in traditional public forums, including streets and sidewalks, and it would restrict our ability to communicate our messages of dissent, disgust, and disappointment to the public," she said.

Whether they are illegal is up to a court’s interpretation. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

It seems "experts" disagree with your interpretation and agree with mine.

 

[dukkha]

OK what duty does the judge perform at home that a protestor can influence? What day they take the trash out is not a judicial duty.

you idiot. do you think maybe judges look at law books at home? ponder the evidence? or are they only thinking of cases when they wear robes.

You keep ignoring the entire law. You don't get to pick only part of it. Residences are protected from protests intending to influence a judge in the discharge of his duty. Writing an opinion at home doesn't suddenly cause the protest to attempt to influence his duty

they don't have to be even writing an opinion, (they could be) they can be taking notes, looking as case law, looking at the Constitution - these are all ancillary judicial duties while they ponder a decision.
have you ever heard the term "taking your work home?". that why the statue INCLUDES residences

I am not the one ignoring the language of the statute.

you are grossly missing important protections from attempted influence at home ,
even though the statute specifically says that

The law suggests? I guess even the statesman is admitting that it is not clear that all protests are illegal.

you finally got a clue.
I even mentioned to you last post about stationary directed protests vs. simply walking thru a neighborhood. That's the tension between free speech and attempting undue influence
If you had bothered to read that link I gave you it goes over that very point

You really need to start reading more than just one sentence in anything you link to.

i mentioned the article -have you researched anything on the statute-
You would understand the tension I just described. which is what you should be debating
not if protesting at a residence is illegal or not (depending on how they protests are targeted)

It seems "experts" disagree with your interpretation and agree with mine.

you dont have any interpretation, you still think jurors are only protected at work on official business.. maybe you get it now. I hope so cause I'm tired of giving you basic info
~~

your homework is to see if Pelosi has allowed this extension to include the judges families.
The Senate passed such an extension over a month ago. she was holding it up
over the Cassidy "testimony" (narrative)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

y

you still think jurors are only protected at work on official business..

You probably shouldn't drink before you post.