Home / General / Special snowflakes demand safe spaces

Special snowflakes demand safe spaces


The Wall Street Journal is appalled that the six unaccountable lawyers currently governing the country on behalf of a minority faction might have to see that someone is unhappy with their actions, and is calling for an exception to the First Amendment based on, I dunno, the major questions doctrine or something:

When it comes to shielding Supreme Court Justices from intimidation by a mob [who says the art of hysterical bullshit has been lost! –ed.] the buck apparently stops nowhere. Marshal of the Court Gail Curley has written to officials in Virginia and Maryland, warning that “protest activity at Justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased.”

Virginia law bans picketing private residences or assembling to “disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home.” Ms. Curley cites that statute in letters to Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Fairfax County. She says that last week dozens of protesters were outside the Justices’ homes, yelling “no privacy for us, no peace for you!” and chanting expletives. “This is exactly the kind of conduct that Virginia law prohibits,” Ms. Curley adds.

Maryland has a similar statute protecting residential peace, which she cites in a letter to Gov. Larry Hogan. To Montgomery County, Ms. Curley points out a local law that prohibits picketing “in front of or adjacent to any private residence.” It allows protests to march through neighborhoods “without stopping at any particular private residence.” But according to the marshal, crowds have lingered for up to 30 minutes at a time outside the Justices’ homes.

Why is nobody willing to deploy such laws against judicial intimidation? Officials have argued that Virginia’s and Maryland’s statutes are unenforceable, since they aren’t content neutral. Both laws have an exception that allows picketing for labor disputes. In a 1980 case (Carey v. Brown), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a similar Illinois picketing ban was unconstitutional, since it had a union carve-out that “accords preferential treatment to the expression of views on one particular subject.”

Jeff McKay, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, said he thinks the Virginia statute quoted by Ms. Curley is unconstitutional. “The law cited in the letter is a likely violation of the First Amendment,” he said. “As long as individuals are assembling on public property and not blocking access to private residences, they are permitted to be there.”

You see, powerful people should not have to face any critical viewpoint expressed on public streets. What are they, women trying to obtain a medical procedure without people (sorry, “counselors”) getting in their face and hurling expletives? Let’s hear from Justice Scalia on this:

Double standards are the best kind!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :