Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

But what exactly are the qualities of the "good people" as compared to those who are not "good?"

What are their beliefs based upon?

Religious doctrine?

Political agenda?

Throwing darts at a board?

What makes their beliefs any better or worse than others and who is to judge?

(sorry if I'm too Libertarian for ya)

Note: my question is a bit of a trap as it is basically impossible to define the term; recall how Robert Pirsig struggled defining the term "quality" in his book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

Quote: rxwine

Why do the justices deserve some right from free speech of others that's not covered in the Constitution concerning a right the conservative majority is removing because they say it's not in the Constitution?

The question of whether it is illegal is a matter of an existing part of the US Code; perhaps someone could get charged and fight it in attempt to get it declared unconstitutional. One really has nothing to do with the other. The Court may deliver a decision that many disagree with. Trying to intimidate judges in order to influence their rulings should not be acceptable…any more than a bunch of morons attacking the Capital to try and intimidate Congress or the sitting VP (at the time) into disregarding election results. One may be much worse than the other, but both our attempts to intimidate government officials to get them to act in a different way.

Protesting near the homes of anyone should be a no-no not because it is illegal (depends on the situation) but because it is not the proper place to do so. It is just another breakdown in society. At some point, most people don’t support further breakdowns.

Quote: RonC

The question of whether it is illegal is a matter of an existing part of the US Code; perhaps someone could get charged and fight it in attempt to get it declared unconstitutional. One really has nothing to do with the other. The Court may deliver a decision that many disagree with. Trying to intimidate judges in order to influence their rulings should not be acceptable…any more than a bunch of morons attacking the Capital to try and intimidate Congress or the sitting VP (at the time) into disregarding election results. One may be much worse than the other, but both our attempts to intimidate government officials to get them to act in a different way.

Protesting near the homes of anyone should be a no-no not because it is illegal (depends on the situation) but because it is not the proper place to do so. It is just another breakdown in society. At some point, most people don’t support further breakdowns.

Only the illegal parts of the Jan 6 protest were illegal. Protesting peacefully, and assembly isn't.

As noted elsewhere protestors yelling at women going into clinics to get an abortion wasn't very neighborly either. I believe they give them zones but won't make protestors leave.

I'm actually not sure how keen I am on protecting our 3 branches of government even in their homes from free speech out on the public sidewalk. Unlike your local business, their decisions affect us 24/7/365. If they don't like what comes with the job, I'm sure we can find someone who will. They get plenty of perks.

Quote: rxwine

Only the illegal parts of the Jan 6 protest were illegal. Protesting peacefully, and assembly isn't.

As noted elsewhere protestors yelling at women going into clinics to get an abortion wasn't very neighborly either. I believe they give them zones but won't make protestors leave.

I'm actually not sure how keen I am on protecting our 3 branches of government even in their homes from free speech out on the public sidewalk. Unlike your local business, their decisions affect us 24/7/365. If they don't like what comes with the job, I'm sure we can find someone who will. They get plenty of perks.

Protests at homes impact many more people than just the targets.

Protest at the place of work as legally allowed.

It may not be illegal but it is not the right way for a society to act.

Quote: RonC

If it is not illegal specifically, it is poor behavior.

That's all It is
Don't like it, move.
My last property was a townhouse on a private street maintained by the HOA. Working-class neighborhood.
If people wanted to protest, have to do it outside the neighborhood
I pretty much live in private RV parks now
Again, if somebody wants to protest me, have to do it outside the park.
If a Justice wants to live on a public road, they have to deal with any consequences regarding living next to public property just like anybody else
Candace Owens went to the home of a BLM leader.
I'm ok with that as long as she stays on the public easement. She goes to the door, I'm not OK with that and she did that.
I have no doubt Clarence probably lives in a gated community

Quote: terapined

That's all It is
Don't like it, move.
My last property was a townhouse on a private street maintained by the HOA. Working-class neighborhood.
If people wanted to protest, have to do it outside the neighborhood
I pretty much live in private RV parks now
Again, if somebody wants to protest me, have to do it outside the park.
If a Justice wants to live on a public road, they have to deal with any consequences regarding living next to public property just like anybody else
Candace Owens went to the home of a BLM leader.
I'm ok with that as long as she stays on the public easement. She goes to the door, I'm not OK with that and she did that.
I have no doubt Clarence probably lives in a gated community

I think it could possibly contempt of court to try and intimidate judges.

Protesters outside the justices’ houses is the perfect GOP deflection story: a meaningless nothingburger meant to try to turn those rat bastards like Kavanaugh into the victims.

Quote: kenarman

I think it could possibly contempt of court to try and intimidate judges.

Nailed it
Not actionable by a judge
But
The actual definition of the word contempt nails it
Thanks Kenarman

"the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn."

Don't like the public access to the neighborhood, move

Quote: terapined

Nailed it
Not actionable by a judge
But
The actual definition of the word contempt nails it
Thanks Kenarman

"the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn."

Don't like the public access to the neighborhood, move

I like my definition better.

Contempt of court, also referred to simply as "contempt," is the disobedience of an order of a court. It is also conduct tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice."

Quote: kenarman

I think it could possibly contempt of court to try and intimidate judges.

It is a Federal Offense to do that.

The US Attny General refuses to enforce that law.

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."