Is It Okay to Protest at SCOTUS Justice Homes? (Coleman Hughes Interview)

[@jackstraw6760]

Approaching a member of government on the public street in Washington is absolutely acceptable.

[@chrisnewburg4839]

That has to do with property. The person u are replying to said you can approach a govt official on the street..that is legal..if it’s not you better tell media cuz they do it all the time. Cheers.

[@unitedwestand5205]

na,ppl should put all of them above us other ppl&treat them like royalty

[@joelrivard5598]

Yeah and no law against approaching someone from government! But there is a law about intimidating judges at their homes!

[@mikelayton3810]

@jerry gerard Why should he. No one is trespassing

[@jeffm6899]

@@mikelayton3810 Apparently you are a little slow. There is a law protecting SCJ, has nothing to do with trespassing.

[@jamesoblivion]

Real easy answer. The SCOTUS has ruled that protesting outside the homes of abortion workers is protected speech, so obviously, protesting outside the home of a SCOTUS 'Justice' should be equally protected.

[@lilys7431]

Thank you for this, I didn’t know this! Today is a successful day, know something I didn’t earlier. Intellect on YT so appreciated.

[@lavenderbee3611]

BEST ANSWER

[@MHO999999]

Sure it's okay, even if the court prohibited protesting outside of abortion workers homes. Who the hell asks permission to protest or lets government tell them how to protest? These folks are protesting a decision made by an an entire unelected branch of govt. Every 1960's Civil Rights march violated Southern laws.

[@bearpawz_]

@@lilys7431 Yes, James.... What Lily said!! 👍

[@tonib.3016]

EXACTLY!!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@thomasmoriarty7881]

When discussing the propriety of protesting outside of Supreme Court Justice's homes, it's important to remember that in the 90's the Supreme Court held that protesting outside the homes of "abortion clinic employees" is protected under the 1st Amendment.

[@jeffm6899]

Although I personally do not agree with protesting at any individuals' home, the laws for abortion clinic employees and Supreme Court Justices are different, hence their ruling. Pretty simple.

[@margaretjohnson6259]

they weren't republicans. only white, hetero, christian men have any rights.

[@margaretjohnson6259]

it's ok for marjorie taylor-green to harass citizens walking down a street, but not for protesters to chant at people who are trying to kill and maim women legally.

[@FlawlessP401]

@@margaretjohnson6259 yes stay mad about it

[@thegreatselkie6009]

@@FlawlessP401 we intend to. I’m not going to sit by and watch women go through this AGAIN!

[@sylviahoffman9440]

Excellent interview with Coleman - He is exactly right with his statement that violence in a protest tends to deminish the subject of protest, the focus becomes the violence.

[@natbarmore]

And yet the anti-abortion movement has repeatedly used violence, and while it hasn’t won them broader public support, it /has/ persuaded enough politicians to their view to get enough judges on courts to see their goals within reach, despite continuing to be a minority opinion. So maybe the corollary is: violence may undermine your moral claim, while simultaneously showing those more concerned with power than morality that you should be taken seriously as a force to be reckoned with.

[@sylviahoffman9440]

@@natbarmore I disagree as many GOP politicians have ran their elections on anti-abortion. So it is a very valuable tool to gain public support.

[@Junksaint]

Protesting peacefully anywhere and everywhere is exactly what's needed.

[@scottishdude9682]

Cool. Shoot me your address so I can come protest at your house.

[@janicewuitschick4599]

What are the choices do we have. They don't want to talk, they certainly don't want to listen, so protest is it. Should have been able to protest at the Supreme Court..

[@bipslone8880]

@@timothykozlowski2945 The moment that the SCOTUS Justices became political, no one should care what they think

[@fleecejohnson9114]

@@janicewuitschick4599 18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally See you in the funny papers

[@plutotech]

@@scottishdude9682 if they not on your property legally you can't do anything.

[@CCJJ160Channels]

That’s so odd, when it was the “trucker convoy protests” there didn’t seem to be an issue. In fact, conservatives were encouraging it.

[@Marco-tb9jy]

both can be bad

[@namepending155]

Whose house were conservatives targeting?

[@CCJJ160Channels]

@@namepending155 most of downtown Ottawa which is even more annoying. This is at least localized. Free speech!

[@f-a6040]

The trucker convoy protest stayed in front of Parliament. They did not go to politicians' private homes to try to directly intimidate them. Huge difference.

[@elizabethdelacerda2087]

@@f-a6040 kinda like what the people did to the school board members?

[@user-em6ie2be7x]

Absolutely Freedom of Speech cuts both ways.

[@richardmaclean7581]

Twitter can’t survive without conflict

[@ninij9692]

@@richardmaclean7581 Twitter is a private business not the government.

[@jurgengosch3915]

@@richardmaclean7581 the fuck does Twitter have to do with the Supreme Court?

[@teeminator30]

No please no hostile acts. You’re an embarrassment.

[@jurgengosch3915]

@jerry gerard Sometimes the law is an ass.

[@timpatton3948]

The Supreme Court Justices should be all in for this since they made the rules of how we can protest at abortion clinics.

[@shlockofgod]

Abortion clinics are public.

[@timpatton3948]

@@shlockofgod No they are not.

[@Avrysatos]

@@shlockofgod Nope. They're not government buildings. They are charities and private companies.

[@shlockofgod]

@@Avrysatos They're still public.

[@shlockofgod]

@kevin Ironside Yeah I do. How come you just joined You Tube a few weeks ago. Had you not heard of it before?

[@ninij9692]

The first amendment states that it is an expression of free speech, and government can not restrict free speech. What they need to stop is the hateful behavior at school board meetings...

[@socraytes]

What do you consider hateful behavior at school board meetings?

[@ninij9692]

@@socraytes threatening the school board members like they have been... it's not what I consider hateful Behavior, it's what the law considers hateful Behavior, yet they aren't being arrested for it...

[@socraytes]

@@ninij9692, ok so what's the threatening behavior?

[@jocde3626]

While I agree that they Can and should protest PEACEFULLY The govt has placed,multiple restrictions on free speech…. No right is unlimited…as Supreme Court justices have said in rulings…as almost every amendment in the constitution has some restrictions placed on it… You can’t slander,you can’t threaten with violence,,you can’t incite others to commit violence.. you can’t defame somebody,,all these forms of free speech and few select are not allowed and the govt can,,,and has placed restrictions on them legally

[@mavssami41]

@@ninij9692 um...nah that's not happening not the same level of the grooming🤷‍♂️

[@tylerhackner9731]

Imo YES. Make them uncomfortable

[@libertariansasquatch]

So is it OK if someone makes you uncomfortable.

[@scotthallgv]

These institutions are largely insulated from scrutiny and act with impunity and little regard for what the public actually wants, so what else can the public do but show up at a place where these people work or live and express their discontent with their actions. Protest is the last safe harbor for the majority of Americans because the government that is supposed to be for the people and of the people is bought and paid for and well out of reach of the majority of Americans to have any substantive influence on so they have no other recourse. The courts and the government in general are on an almost daily basis working against the best interested of Americans and they almost literally have no say in the matter because everyone in gov is a fucking puppet. The average American cant afford to take part in government so protest is all they have left as their voice because its not like their votes fucking count.

[@joelrivard5598]

No u can't intimidate a judge to change a ruling because u don't like it!

[@terriej123]

Thank you.

[@scotthallgv]

@@joelrivard5598 Who said anything about intimidation? Protest is protected free speech and people are expressing their freedoms.

[@whysocurious7366]

@@joelrivard5598 why do you think that people are unable to intimidate judges?

[@jeffm6899]

Apparently, you have no idea what the Supreme Court is even supposed to do? They are not supposed to have regard for what the public wants. Go protest your elected politicians, they are the ones not listening, and they are the ones that have the ability to change the laws the Supreme Court is charged with upholding. Go watch a couple of episodes of Schoolhouse Rock, you will be much smarter for it.

[@gigaman6]

The question I'd put to both these gentlemen is: If the point of the Supreme Court is to be insulated from the whims of public opinion, why then is there any political prerogative with regard to the nominations of these judges at all? And in the case of Kavanaugh, why are the alleged corporate interests attached to this Justice ignored?

[@jeffm6899]

Good point. No Judge should have any bias. they should be appointed solely on their experience and proven ability to rule per the letter of the law. And to your point, why the bias toward KBJ for being a black woman?

[@somnus_aeternam]

So true. And this proves my point that a previous ruling shouldn't be able to just be thrown out because now the court tips a certain way politically. Seems like a dog and pony show and the citizens are left to pay the price..

[@thegreatselkie6009]

@@jeffm6899 exactly so. I’m finding out that there are very few people in the country who can set their personal feelings and beliefs aside when the situation screams for it.

[@mandatoryhelicopterrides4596]

@@jeffm6899 KBJ was the definition of a diversity hire. You don't get to announce you're making a diversity hire then complain when someone taps the sign.

[@jeffm6899]

@@mandatoryhelicopterrides4596 In a world of equal rights and equal opportunity, there should be no, "Diversity hire's". While it is nice to have diversity, not hiring the most qualified will ultimately lead to failure.

[@charlescrawford6157]

Hell yes. They are politicians not judges. Protest away

[@rc7625]

@@timothykozlowski2945 According to who or what?

[@charlescrawford6157]

@@timothykozlowski2945 it's still a free country. At least for now.

[@bipslone8880]

@@timothykozlowski2945 protesting is a right, you can't outlaw a right

[@Fenristripplex]

@@rc7625 The law. Lol.

[@Ixnatifual]

They’re protesting, not intimidating. People are allowed to express opinions different from your own. North Korea also hates free speech, so you could always move there.

[@Dsworddance22]

Short answer: yes. Why should Supreme Court justices deserve the right to privacy when they are going to erase the right to privacy women have between themselves and their doctor regarding abortion?

[@willjapheth23789]

Regarding abortion was the key word there, men or women don't have their patient-doctor privacy protected with drugs or unapproved procedures.

[@victorbergman9169]

You know the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and they interpret the right to privacy to not include abortion. The right to privacy itself is not even explicitly stated in the Constitution.

[@Dsworddance22]

@@victorbergman9169 There are a million things we take for granted that are not in the constitution. Technically you don't have a right to gay marriage or interracial marriage. You don't have a right to civil rights.

[@victorbergman9169]

@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd yeah, they interpret the Constitution. They have ruled that the right to privacy regarding abortion doesn't exist anymore. Yes, they are not following stare decisis by overturning precedent. But ultimately they interpret the Constitution. And it is our responsibility to maintain an Independent Judiciary.

[@victorbergman9169]

@@Dsworddance22 You have a right to civil liberties (the 10 amendments) and kind of with civil rights. 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, 26th amendments. They all include civil rights for people.

[@nicholasschoonbeck6866]

I've been thinking a lot about when, in other countries, when a dictator is chased out of the country, & the citizens go explore their castles & mansions, how the country will finally see how wrong things have been. & now, I kind of want people to go show us the homes of Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, etc, lets see how they live.

[@greatcesari]

Yes

[@PM-pd5qf]

And David Pakman

[@michaelburk9171]

I think Tucker has 20,000 pairs of shoes.

[@nicholasschoonbeck6866]

@@FlyingElbow Sure, but of course there is a pretty significant difference between Dems & conservatives. Dems might want to maintain their life style & we could argue that's a problem, that politicians are America's royalty, but the conservatives are literally dangerous in many ways, both inciting violent extremists, misleading people, even about their health, about the climate, etc. If Trump taught you anything, it should be that the GOP is not at all the same as everyone else, so let's start there & once we've stopped them, we can move on to the next aspect.

[@diranshouse7061]

Why stop at Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz? How about George Bush? The Clintons? The Obama's? Rachel Maddow? Bernie Sanders? Please don't stop halfway. Go the full nine

[@EverClear0]

Regarding showing up to protest at the home of a supreme court justice: There are many things that people can disagree on and that is totally fair. You may learn from the oppositions perspective and they may learn from yours. You go back and forth and usually settle somewhere in the middle. That's all well and good. However, when the "justices" are literally coming after your human rights to have autonomy over your own body, something has to be done. They are taking the fight to your bedroom and to your doctor's clinic, so they give up their privacy, their freedom, their right to have a quiet dinner at home with their family. All they have to do is drop the assault on personal freedoms and then they don't have to worry about anyone harassing them. They chose this fight and they need to swing for it.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Ahh. There’s the true Democrat party. Don’t forget your pitch forks and lynching ropes... smh.

[@kj_H65f]

They seem like they don't like people infringing on their private lives. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.........

[@EverClear0]

@@kj_H65f 😀

[@michaelburk9171]

Scotus is "supposed" to be above politics. But justices are being political and partisan. If they want to play that then they get all the flack and protest politicians get.

[@MrZombiecorpse]

Now you see why the anti vax people were so upset.

[@danlmarlow5446]

Why would it be wrong to peacefully protests at their homes? Privacy, you say? What about the privacy of our own bodies? If they want to take our privacy away, why should we care about theirs?

[@danlmarlow5446]

@ghost mall I agree with that also.

[@f-a6040]

You can do whatever you want with your own body and your own life. You should not be allowed to kill a fully developed child. That is someone else's body and life.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@f-a6040 funnily they can do whatever to a 3rd trimester baby in some places but the government can stop the doctor from selling you drugs. Whatever this privacy right is I don't see it in action.

[@nickman9639]

Because its about being the bigger people, and setting a precedent that left is the most sensible position

[@danlmarlow5446]

@@f-a6040 Abortions are done before a fetus reaches viability. That means they are not a fully developed child. 🙄

[@marketpie6637]

"following the norms will never get anything done" - How are you so sure you are so right? - Even if you are on the right side, how are you so sure that your approach will not cause more long term harm then good? - when you grab the power you are seeking, how are you so sure you are going to do any better?

[@Meowzamz]

You don't get to strip away someone else's rights and then get to claim a right to privacy when people show up at your house that's how you actually get change not staying in the designated protest zone where you're not actually interrupting anything

[@MrZombiecorpse]

So the protesters on Jan.6 were justified then? I knew they were, thanks.

[@Meowzamz]

@@MrZombiecorpse no bc their rights weren't being ripped away. They were misguided by a conman

[@vgaportauthority9932]

@@Meowzamz Explain

[@Mulberrysmile]

You know, usually I would say that it isn’t okay to protest at a government officials home, but since these people have decided to insert themselves into women’s uteruses…well…that is an even greater and more egregious violation on a personal level so they’ve already broken the boundaries of respectful behavior. Sovereignty over our bodies is essential to liberty in ALL cases not related to public health and welfare. Forced birthing is what was the norm for enslaved women. We are now literally body slaves to religious cultists who believe in male authority over females, white supremacists worried about low birth rates of white children, and greedy capitalists worried about the declining population affecting future profits.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

So tell me, do women magically become pregnant walking down the street? Nope, they don’t. So stop pretending there isn’t a decision made to engage in an activity that may result in pregnancy.

[@greatcesari]

They are unelected unpopular religious zealots indirectly committing mass genocide. The least people can do is show up at their front door.

[@aaronsande]

100% flubbed the SCOTUS answer. First, it's really great to see two men saying this isn't the way, folks, use democratic means. You can't fix something with Democracy that's broken by authoritarianism. Authoritarianism will win every time against your little vote. Yes, SCOTUS is not supposed to be accessible by popular vote. But they are still supposed to be deciding in the best interest of the country and, yes, its people. These are ACTIVIST judges, NOT doing their job as assigned. So, no. Fuck them.

[@MrZombiecorpse]

Doesn't matter how offended you are, still have to follow the law.

[@icebergrose8955]

So these judges want privacy? Is that in the original constitution? I don't think it is.

[@TomDLuv777]

Yes, protest EVERYTHING!

[@richardmaclean7581]

No Y’all cashed your socialist checks? I’m hooked. WHERE IS THE NEXT ONE!? When’s the next Pandemic!

[@alberg6290]

three separate issues 1. is it constitutional ?2. is it morally right ? 3. is it an effective protest?

[@anitahead]

If they want to go into your home and tell you what to do with your life, you should be able to go to theirs.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Yes, when you start killing family members due to their inconvenience to your preferred lifestyle, the government will come into your home.

[@davidjewell9796]

But in 98 - 99.6 percent (depending on the source and the year of the data) Of cases, a choice to have sex was made, to create the condition of pregnancy. They didn't come into your home and tell you not to have sex. They are only telling your state to make a decision on when life begins. Conception? 6 weeks? When the baby has arms and legs? Because once it is a life, it cannot be taken or aborted. These are distinctions that need to be made. The taking of human life isn't something which includes "coming into your home and violating your rights" You don't have the right to volunteer someone else's life to make your life easier. So fir example, if life begins at 6 weeks, then the only logical conclusion is that somewhere between the 41st and 42nd day of pregnancy, a baby earns its right to be called human. But why not 43 days? Why not 40? For example, of course.

[@mxewris2355]

Did he really just say "vote harder instead of protesting"? Why is demonstrating, being out in the streets, building grass roots movements and organizing not the right way to "blow off steam" as he said?? This is a cowardly way of saying that accountability of public officials shouldn't happen, that they can do whatever they want between election periods and with supreme court justices from now till their death. When supreme court justices consciously decide to act as politicians and effectifly create policy affecting thousands obviously according to their own personally held beliefs, then it's very much time to stop the age old Democrat status-quo fence sitting and be an actual democrat.

[@Ixnatifual]

He’s saying there are very real consequences of letting someone like Trump get elected, either by voting for him or not voting for his opponent. And this is a wake up call. They’re going to do this no matter how hard you protest. The time to have taken action was during the election he won.

[@lmaololroflcopter]

As long as there's no violence I really don't see a problem with protesting outside the house of a conservative SCOTUS. The slight inconvenience of having some loud people outside your house is nothing compared to being forced to be pregnant to completion. I think there should be non violent protests outside the Capitol building to reinforce the fact that the overturning of Roe is the fault of both parties.

[@MrZombiecorpse]

No problem aside from the fact that it is illegal. STOP DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRACY.

[@ottz2506]

As long as it’s done peacefully and there is no attempt to actually step onto the property and damage anything or harm anyone, people of any political affiliation should be allowed to protest outside of a politician’s home.

[@greatcesari]

I disagree. These unelected unpopular justices are indirectly committing mass genocide. They deserve to fear for their life, just like the millions of women who are scared for their lives and livelihoods.

[@mavssami41]

But most of the time it isn't peaceful

[@ottz2506]

@@mavssami41 If it isn’t peaceful and the property is breached then their rights of free speech no longer applies here.

[@PattiMoreno212]

Loving all of the interviews lately, David!

[@lindah.1104]

No. Intimidation is wrong on BOTH sides.

[@nicolejohnson5225]

Hmm...he keeps talking about violence, but these protesters aren't being violent. Right?? I see their "moral seriousness" demonstrated in front of the Justices' homes.

[@diranshouse7061]

He didn't say they were violent. He was just describing the difference between an effective protest and one that isn't. That said, protesting SC Justices is illegal. Period!

[@rankat1841]

The SCOTUS has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain. But then again, with this SCOTUS, that may change.

[@willpower3317]

God forbid anything gets changed by SCOTUS. Kinda like Plessy V Ferguson , huh?

[@ropativ7483]

*When you talk about protesting at Govt Officials homes, it means pressure is being placed on people that represented your interests. As long as any law hasn't been broke, I see NOTHING WRONG about that strategy!!! DON'T STRONGARM PEOPLE WITH YOUR ARBITRARY DICTATORIAL RULE - It's Democracy!!!! Whether or not is the right thing in David Pakman's clean shining white standards, peaceful protest is protest regardless of location, as long as it's within the confines of the Laws!!!!*

[@RipitRon]

Agreed However what % does this really do any good? You can protest all you want the outcome rarely changes. In fact in this day and age it has an adverse effect. Both the left and the right media and Political POS use it against one side or the other.

[@ropativ7483]

@@RipitRon A measure of each little protests all over, has sparked the conversation that was heard in the heart of where it matters - the Congress and Senate!!! While you are looking at the bigger picture and tried to measure its impact, individual protests organized contributes to the wholistic aim. Imagine the alternative! The MSM media wouldn't be talking about the issue, nor would be the Republicans as Ted Cruz has done. Measuring its impact on an individual basis, is not wise. Measuring its contribution is. And it did contribute to moving the senate's attention!!!

[@bossman6798]

Roe V Wade was a ruling made based on your constitutional rights to privacy. Since our right to privacy has been infringed then so should theirs. They deserve to live with what they have done.

[@Varaha86]

I think the principle of protesting without trespassing on their property and with no violence is ok when you consider the extremity of the ruling and how many lives this could negatively effect. In addition, when you think about the fact that there is no way to vote out a Supreme Court Justice, they have lifetime appointments, and the system has no real mechanism to hold them accountable unless they do something absolutely crazy.

[@banehelsing7541]

I think most people don’t see an issue with that… the ones that have an issue with it are usually public figures who have had protestors outside their residences in the past 🤣😂😅 So on TV there’s a different opinion on the subject versus your average tax payer…

[@joelrivard5598]

I thought u all supported violence last year during the George floyd protests something changed?

[@joelrivard5598]

@Deen Chaser no problem? Their are laws against protesting at judges house!

[@shlockofgod]

@Deen Chaser Stalin said something similar.

[@Varaha86]

@@shlockofgod sure in about 40 years when the composition of the court changes due to that whole lifetime appointment thing. Dipshit

[@keenanschouten2582]

How would America nonviolently break away from great Britain?

[@namepending155]

Public protest isn’t harassment at ones home. Treat others the way you would want to be treated for having differing political views.

[@princeofthekylineskyline2984]

I imagine you would prefer not to have crouds of people at your place of residence.

[@michaelburk9171]

Differing political views are ok. Work to remove civil rights from 50% of our nations citizens is not ok.

[@namepending155]

@@michaelburk9171 others feel just as strongly about their views. They think it’s murder. Neither’s warrant poor behavior. If you can’t see the difference between protesting in public versus harassing an individual, I don’t know what to say. It’s the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated.

[@namepending155]

@@princeofthekylineskyline2984 on a scale from protesting out of sight to burning the city down, it’s somewhere near the middle.

[@princeofthekylineskyline2984]

@@namepending155 There's been fire bombings of pro-life centers already so just give it time.

[@hermenutic]

Is it okay to protest the magistrates at their house? Why not? I would think the circumstances about which the protest is made would determine if it should be done. The right to petition and grieve in relationship to the State is a traditional American political activity. It's especially important in these times when the government's ears have been deaf to the usual being polite staying within the lines and holding signs form of protest. If normal civic speech continues to go unheard what else are the people to do but SPEAK LOUDER? I think that is the justification if there is any justification. The government has not taken the people's voices seriously up until and including the present. If it is not understood as acceptable speech and all other options have been just as fruitless how can the people ever get what they want from their government? The government hasn't listened when spoken to in English. That's the situation and that's why people protest. Should the people stop protesting just because the government refuses to respond to their grievances and petitioning?

[@lorimoore5589]

When protests get violent an destructive the message is lost. People will focus on, an talk about only the violence. When someone gets beaten an doesnt retaliate, the thing everyone will see is the person doing the beating, it highlights that bad behavior. Its like when someone is screaming and yelling at you in public, if you remain silent everyone will be thinking about what a p.o.s that person is but if you started screaming back suddenly you're both lunatics. Chris Rock an Will Smith are the perfect example, Will Smith looked even worse, compared to Chris's calm response. In any protest you want to Chris Rock!

[@Damacles9]

Martyrdom sells, but who's dying?

[@lorimoore5589]

@@Damacles9 Witty saying but it doesn't relate to what I was saying. 😊

[@AnyaEightySeven]

They can tell me what I can do with my body, but god forbid I inconvenience them outside their property to protest.

[@jeffm6899]

I guess you don't understand the difference between, "Inconvenience" and intimidation....

[@AnyaEightySeven]

@@jeffm6899 I never said they were mutually exclusive.

[@jeffm6899]

@@AnyaEightySeven No, you never mentioned intimidation at all, it wouldn't have sounded as nice, but it IS what anyone who will "protest" or "inconvenience" a SCJ is really doing. Just another instance of the left blatantly spinning crap.

[@AnyaEightySeven]

@@jeffm6899The purpose of protest is to show the will and dissatisfaction of the people. By nature protest is often intimidating. So long as it remains peaceful, this particular form of intimidation is not problematic and does nothing but inconvenience the justices.

[@jeffm6899]

@@AnyaEightySeven Well that is your obviously biased opinion. ANY intimidation towards a SCJ is wrong. You obviously cannot overcome your bias in order to understand that this situation is different than lobbying or protesting our elected officials, whose job it is to listen to the people. SCJ are not appointed to listen to the people, they are appointed in order to determine the letter of the law. Don't like the law? Our system provides a vehicle for laws to be changed. Go work with your lawmakers to make sure your voice is heard.

[@mysticmalaichicken2518]

Nice to see D Pak talking to black Sam Harris

[@Chickenlegs41]

No, I don't think it's OK to protest at the home(s) of the Justices, or any other elected official for that matter* (*Protesting at the White House would be an exception as this is The People's House.) Go ahead and protest at their workplace, protest in the public square, protest along the route they drive to work, but their homes should be off-limits. Their home is a private location, separate from their workplace, so it should be a refuge for them.

[@suarezguy]

Yes, Supreme Court justices should not be accountable to the public for their judgments. There can be protests outside the Supreme Court, it should probably even be legal to protest outside their houses, though the latter is at least morally doubtful, but there shouldn't be expectation that you can force them to change.

[@jandrews6254]

Since SCOTUS is abandoning the privacy issue regarding women’s rights, I’d say he has no right to privacy either

[@GDPCryptoShow]

Amazing! I love this and we need more of it and more of these two.

[@nothingistrutv3927]

Are we still doing pitty party for public servants being confronted in public. David come on man. Move on.

[@magnabosco210]

Awesome interview.

[@vgaportauthority9932]

Just gonna butt in and say yes, that is ok. They were already given life time jobs as your rulers... If you can't reach them at home, you can not reach them anywhere. Being the appointed the arbiter of all should not also mean you're immune to everything in society.. If you make horrible calls, the only way for people to actually voice their dissent is by protesting, and it's not like supcourt justices give a shit about what the filthy poor say unless they become a nuisance. Keep them up at night, make them regret being partisan filth.

[@FrostilicusKK]

10:20 "You have electoral means of influencing laws in your state". Yeah. Unless, you know, the Supreme Court says otherwise.

[@crobinson2624]

Absolutely. In fact I would take protests a step further and insist that Americans who are against this conservative activism coming from the Supreme Court should initiate their own trucker convoy protest.

[@nate18268]

This is an excellent interview. I would love to see David interview Eugene Volokh to get more of a legal perspective on protests and the first amendment.

[@davidv7275]

I have issues with a group of protestors going to a persons home. Primarily if you are there with your family (kids) you might have great concern if things get violent. Not saying that will ever happen in this case, but I do not want people feeling threatened in their own home.

[@belakthrillby]

No. Protest in DC. Don't go to someone's home as that creates a very unsafe situation.

[@ShimmyMD]

Excellent interview. You two should discuss more often!

[@simontemplar404]

No it frickin isn't. Do it at their place of work.

[@pompelmostique]

Do we live in a democracy? When our options are freedom so long as we are okay with the rights the state determines? What to do when the Justices CAUSED the outrage? I have no issue with protests at their homes for removing rights from 50% of the population that impact 100% of the population.

[@Tylercantsleep]

removing rights?

[@pompelmostique]

@@Tylercantsleep where once women had rights to decide when to start or begin their families, they no longer have them. My friend's 1st attempt to have a baby went ectopic and her right to stop the fertilized egg from developing outside the uterus and killing her will no longer exist... That affects her husband's right to have a wife, her relatives, her friends... The Court is telling the world to hell with all the people in your lives who love you, we think the unviable pregnancy is more important; we think the lives of undeveloped potential humans are more important than the women who carry them. Yeah, those rights.

[@Tylercantsleep]

@@pompelmostique abortion isn’t being banned?

[@pompelmostique]

@@Tylercantsleep yes. Yes it is

[@Tylercantsleep]

@@pompelmostique how is returning it to a state issue banning?

[@aaronsande]

I'm in favor of things they're worried about and saying we MUST not do, TBH. What choice do we have anymore?

[@wny488]

As long as you aren't violent it's fair.

[@nickman9639]

What is violent? I could break into your home and argue Im not being violent. Where is the line and why is the line there

[@wny488]

@@nickman9639 Violent means they destroy property, or hurt people physically.

[@nickman9639]

@@wny488 So calling someone racial slurs is not a form of violence. Getting in someones face is not violence

[@nickman9639]

@@wny488 what if I dox someone, is that a form of violence?

[@wny488]

@@nickman9639 It can be yes

[@sberesford2523]

Is it okay to take the rights of women's autonomy?

[@willjapheth23789]

Well there are alot of women in prison that don't have much autonomy, so I guess so.

[@salixalba6536]

No justice, no peace.

[@KlaxontheImpailr]

As long as it doesn’t turn violent, anything should be fair game!

[@planetvance]

Lol, who cares what Coleman's opinion is? So ready for the bonus show!

[@Mike-jv4rz]

Spoken like a true liberal....

[@catherinenelson4162]

Mr. Hughes, I live in Georgia, and other than Catholics, all of the churches in my town, at one time or another have come to my door. Mormon's also come calling. Of them all, there are only two religions where the people are well dressed, have smiles on their faces and are nice. Those are the last religion I mentioned and the J.W.'s. The J.W.'s try to be brief and are respectful. They have shown me a scripture where Jesus commanded his followers to go and teach. I know they aren't paid, and something tells me it's not easy, so I try to be kind. A lot of people just say they aren't interested, and I think most will get the hint. I grew up with J.W.'s and also worked with some. I hope this is helpful to you

[@nickman9639]

JW is a cult with a history of concealing serious abuse. It’ll take a more then politeness then to see them otherwise

[@nycatlady2314]

As long as we have radical right wing justices it’s more than ok, it’s required.

[@dugw15]

What's radical about letting States decide, if they want to, to prohibit the killing of unborn children? Frankly, it blows my mind that in this day and age we still have to talk about whether it's okay to kill children. 🤯🤦‍♂️ I'd like to think we left that barbarism behind centuries ago.

[@rwmcrady]

Excellent interview.

[@aaronsande]

OH MAN he nailed it by talking about Jehovah's Witnesses!

[@Avrysatos]

I wouldn't do it but maybe they should own up to the fact that their verdict is a death sentence to more than a few living women and realize people might be a little upset about that. The justices and Congress people do not take the gravity of their office seriously. They are playing political games with lives.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Well hey, at least the protesters don’t care about the death sentence of children.

[@jeffm6899]

"More than a few living women" and saving potentially MILLIONS of babies' lives.....hmmm...strange argument you make.

[@Avrysatos]

@@ricardocabeza6006 as stated before there were abortions before this decision. THERE WERE ACTUALLY MORE ABORTIONS BEFORE THE ROE VERDICT IF YOU BOTHERED LOOKING AT FACTS ONCE IN YOUR SELF RIGHTOUS HOLY ROLLER CRUSADE. All Roe did was make it so we didn't have dead women along with your precious fetuses. All removing it will do is make more dead women along with the dead fetuses. And they did it for politics. Judges aren't supposed to be partisan but this is murder for a partisan cause. Just because you think it's okay to murder those women doesn't make it less partisan.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@Avrysatos There were 1.6 million abortions in 1990 alone, one of the highest on record, as reported by ABC News via CDC data. Now... please provide some annual numbers for years prior to 1973, with your source cited.

[@Marco-tb9jy]

Big fan of Coleman Hughes and enjoyed the conversation. Looking forward to your appearance on his podcast!

[@danw9464]

Wonder how long it'll take for David to smear him..

[@princeofthekylineskyline2984]

@@danw9464 probably 10 seconds then say it's a bad faith conversation.

[@snoski]

I've been looking forward to it as well, and I have no idea why it has not appeared in Coleman's channel yet. David seemed surprised it's not up when a caller asked about it recently, seeming to imply that the actual "Conversation With Coleman" had already been done. I wonder if we'll ever see it. ☹️🤷‍♂️

[@Marco-tb9jy]

@@snoski interesting. I bet coleman scrapped it

[@patriciatoomingtheplantpar2558]

Yes, it ok to protest ourside there home since what they pass dictates what happens in everyone's home!

[@ninij9692]

Protesting for people's rights is not the same thing as someone going to your door and wanting to talk to you about something personal... this dude has lost his mind. And it's quite interesting that he called them a mob and not protesters...

[@synchronium24]

"Protesting for people's rights is not the same thing as someone going to your door and wanting to talk to you about something personal" That does not sound like an honest or accurate description of Coleman's position. Timestamp?

[@joelrunyan1608]

Where else can you voice your opinion to the justices... they are servants. Not God's. They're just People

[@Don-ih5dn]

If the Supreme is following a party line and not going with the majority of the population and their own words.They have become political actvists. This makes them accountable and must answer to the public period. If they don't explain their individual reasons. The Court has become redundant.

[@joshboston2323]

he is so similar to sam harris. His voice and the intonation, the way he sits in chairs, the cadence of his speech, the little hiccups in his sentences here and there etc.

[@jamesdove8021]

Great conversation. I found this useful as a guide to think through this issue.

[@diranshouse7061]

Coleman always brings that to the table. Even when one disagrees with him. He is clearly a deep thinker.

[@trdiopn5737]

It's odd how Coleman Hughes has been elevated despite having not accomplished anything substantive.

[@landdealsCA]

Ones legal and ones illegal.

[@old_grey_cat]

Has the US not got a law protecting judges and jurors etc. from harassment and intimidation aimed at changing or restricting their decisions, including at their homes? If there is, how can the system test the difference between voicing one's preference and intent to intimidate? (Spelling edits)

[@ebert8756]

oh this is a crossover i've been waiting for!

[@warnerjones9932]

A difference between the Civil rights protest and the BLM protest is the civil rights protest had to be civil because if they weren't they would be beaten or killed. Also the civil rights protest was able to be successful because of the threat of violence from the black panther party and the nation of Islam.

[@AKGreen]

I love Coleman!

[@t.h.3432]

Who says any judges are being intimidated because people are outside their home?! Did any scotus say they’re scared? I would say it’s their own fault for not living in a gated neighborhood but can’t assume they have deep pockets to pay for that in those areas. What’s the difference between people protesting outside of a scotus home and an elected official where threats were communicated like poisoning their pets, raping the official etc.?? 🤷‍♂️

[@timothykelly5588]

No-but here is what I propose: ALL elected/Government officials MUST upon demand present themselves in a public area-the National mall to run the gauntlet of peaceful protesters and respond to their questions.

[@Varaha86]

But what would the threshold be for how many people wanting it to be considered a good faith “public demand” and thus require them to appear? I also imagine that you could get a lot of frivolous demands to appear as well that far from being anything substantive is a waste of everyone’s time even if the people wanting it can’t or won’t realize it. I think as long as people are not trespassing and staying off their property and there is no violence, it’s ok. Hypothetically, would it not be ok to protest at their homes if the Supreme Court reinstated the Plessy v Ferguson ruling and made minorities drink from different water fountains, go to separate schools etc etc. I think the right principle is that protesting at their homes with no trespassing and no violence is ok when they make an extreme ruling like this when you consider they are unable to be voted out of office, have lifetime appointments, and the system really has no mechanism to hold them accountable aside from them doing something crazy

[@timothykelly5588]

@@Varaha86 how about a poll from a vetted, statistically representative sample-full disclosure of who you are and what your intentions are on record and open to the public; redundant questions should be narrowed down to a few good ones

[@jaycol21]

I’d show up at their homes for sure. These people shouldn’t be that comfortable lying once given positions of power.

[@therealivydawg]

I say yes people should protest at these political people's homes because they make decisions that hurt people's lives. They shouldn't just be able to just go home to peace and quiet. Don't like it don't do the job.

[@burlingtonhighsociety5499]

Great interview!

[@yeshua_base64]

It's not okay. Only ideologues think it's okay - on both sides.

[@sarchie15]

Violence is not the answer but thats not what happened here. Guys, it doesn’t surprise me that this particular strategy isn’t your personal protest style or approach. You both have platforms already. You don’t feel silenced. You also don’t feel desperation. I appreciate two young male academics trading protest theory comfortably while their bodily autonomy remains untouched, but you have never personally grappled with the threat of the court in your lifetime. Expecting desperate citizens to keep their end of the bargain with regard to social norms, while the Court is not keeping their end of the bargain, may be a sign that you have the luxury of all of this being theoretical for you. I think Coleman’s assessment of the Civil Rights Movement or marriage equality is over simplistic. This is a repeat issue I see with centrists and conservatives whenever leftists protest. We need to stop expecting every protest to be “I have a dream.” MLK was one of a kind. He will never exist again. I agree that the most successful social movements were more substantive than violent, but, in this case, and in the overwhelming case of progressive protests, they are almost always peaceful, including BLM, so it seems hes arguing a strawman here. Coleman also seems quite concerned with persuading the fence sitters. What fence sitters? The overwhelming majority disagree with this decision already. Nobody is overly concerned with the possible loss of a couple fence sitters. He also seems to actually believe that the Court deserves to stay insulated. I think this court "aesthetic" that they are above partisanship- is the real problem. They are just people. But he's holding onto that aesthetic. That ship sailed. We are mythologizing our own systems when we do this. As a general rule, I would be careful about painting this picture that a supreme court justice should remain untouchable. Liberals and centrists (if there is such a thing) love this optics topic. You don’t see these conversations on the right. Conservatives never worry about optics. ***I don’t think we should take our cues from the right,*** and violence is NEVER okay, but why was that even discussed since none of the protests so far have been violent? This takes away from the merits of the protestors arguments. This could of course change tomorrow, but it’s odd to talk about violence when violence hasn’t happened. And for a more impressionable audience member, this sends the message that one supreme court justices feelings are more important than millions of womens bodies. Criticizing violence from a protest is low hanging fruit. It’s easy to point at and say “that’s wrong!” But I would also encourage anyone to google “social violence” - an entirely different form of violence that the supreme court is arguably causing, and is much harder to see compared to a 30 second video snippet of one protest. Im happy to hear a convo about protest theory, but I do NOT think what these specific protestors did is wrong. A few fence sitters and centrists clutching their pearls because protestors were outside of his home, should not be our main concern. Our main concern should be on what the goal of the *majority* of peaceful protestors want and what the merits of their arguments are. Again, in this SPECIFIC case, they were not violent. What is worse? Invading a woman’s uterus, or obstructing someones view of the street?

[@jackpfiester5013]

I agree. Coleman's take on the civil rights movement is frustratingly simplistic. I'd argue the success of the peaceful tactics of MLK and the like worked only because of their contrast to the more "radical" members of the movement like Robert F. Williams, who has been more or less erased from the movement's history. Inconvenient civil disobedience got shit done.

[@sarchie15]

@@jackpfiester5013 Coleman is really good at playing the "Overly rational calm centrist male." Don't get me wrong, There are things Coleman has said I agree with. But he sometimes uses the same rhetorical strategy as Sam Harris. He is well spoken, yet doesn't actually say anything particularly insightful by the time you reach the end. Meanwhile, the places most likely to experience vandalism, assault, death threats, stalking, is ABORTION PROVIDERS. Coleman indirectly gives aid to Ted Cruz when Ted Cruz called these peaceful protests "mob violence."

[@Motionedout]

Good points....though a question: can we channel this current "street protest" energy into "mail your local representatives en masse so that they pass better legislation, and failing that, vote them out of office, and try again with the next representative" (lol) energy? In other words, real democracy? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to come off as a person who doesn't believe in the value of protest over what is being protested. I do believe in protests, I think there are times when protests are a good, if not an absolutely necessary option, to stand up and be counted, passionately, peacefully, resisting non-violently, and that they do serve as a way, if done correctly, as a visual representation of righteous discontent, which in effect, can get more people on your side. In the long run, however, the lasting (and yes, still peaceful) way to change things in a democracy is to participate in it. In a fairly boring way, lol. Mailing your representatives, forming coalitions, boycotting, and voting. This is how it is done, true nonviolent resistance, participatory democracy. It needs to be done every day in our system, but that's our responsibility, isn't it?

[@sarchie15]

@@Motionedout Is there data that suggests these things are mutually exclusive? If there is data out there that suggests that those people outside his home are likely non-voters, then I will hear you out. But if not, then you're problem is with complacent non-voters, not protestors.

[@Motionedout]

@@sarchie15 I wouldn't say my issue is with non-voters, exactly (though voting, of course, is of very high importance) but rather with uninvolved constituents in general. Constituents have a duty to voice their concerns to their representatives, through phone calls, mailings, or as civic groups working with elected officials to pass legislation. I would consider uninvolved constituents to be the people who vote (or not) on Primary/Election Day and don't do any of these other things the rest of the year. That said, uninvolved constitutents can also be people who participate in protests one day and do not pick up the phone to call their representative the next. Or people who protest a company one day and still buy from that company the next. I believe for a protest movement to work, there is a measure of sacrifice that must take place among citizens, but also a move to work with their own representatives, as best they can, to bring about change. Outdoors demonstations and protests and their effectiveness in influencing people is really neither here nor there for me. Given the protest doesn't physically threaten or harm anyone I wouldn't condemn the act in itself. The people gathered around someone's house, if you are going to accept that as OK, you also have to concede that crowds do get out of control at times (no matter who is protesting) and not-so-great things can happen, just by virtue of a crowd being a crowd. I understand it is disingenuous to critique the protests this week being more than what they were or something they were not - as Pakman and even the Biden Adminstration seemed to do, but it still was a crowd outside a home in a democracy, where we have the right to call or write letters to elected representatives, where we have the right to form civic associations, where we have the freedom to boycott businesses, where we have the right to vote. Broadly speaking (and this is admittedly from an uninformed perspective, I don't know how many protesters are engaged with other forms of civic duty) that's where we have rights in our form of government, whether we want to use them to our advantage is our choice (hopefully we can).

[@nonaeubinis4934]

Is it okay to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies? It's like you just don't get it, David.

[@woobiefuntime]

there is a difference. One has a impact on a country .The other has a impact on that person. And I would say that the father should have a say if he wants to raise it because its apart of him. if it isn't the product of rape.

[@davidcatanese640]

Absolutely ok.!!!

[@ombra711]

Not sure what dude is rambling about. Reporters go to peoples homes all the time to get a scoop.

[@deenil]

They had some Norms that they stuck to but they also had many Norms they actively chose to ignore and overstep, there is a reason that the Civil Rights Movement is the textbook example of civil disobedience. The idea that norms and laws are sacred and should never be violated is just absurd. Sometimes you do need to ignore Norms to get things done and his own example suggest that

[@dmd7472]

You had me at it’s sort of a private space. If you can’t see being harassed in your home is problem I can’t hear you. But as he suggested his thoughts weren’t fully formed and maybe he arrives at correct conclusions slowly

[@judethaddeus9856]

No one should be going to anyone’s home uninvited

[@ArieParty]

Protesting supreme judges most definitely should be legal, especially if it’s a political decision. Type of thinking by the guest would have left America a colony, left black Americans as slaves, women as second class citizens, etc. A law does equal correct, righteous, fair, or anything positive automatically. Laws are created by dominations forces and those forces are not always benevolent. This type of thinking keeps us stagnant and muddy up the waters, halting progress. I’m my opinion it would be better if this type of guy should stay out of politics and let things play out because he doesn’t really stand for anything. And the concern trolling is annoying. 🤷🏾‍♀️

[@paulweaver7074]

I can't imagine how intimidating it must be for the families of these justices, especially if they have to go outside the house for some reason.

[@trappedinamerica7740]

I can’t imagine how intimidating it must be for women that need an abortion, especially if they are already struggling financially like most of us are.

[@paulweaver7074]

@@trappedinamerica7740 My sympathy for the families of the justices has nothing to do with my stance on abortion. There could be children in those houses.

[@twilightcrush]

lol boo hoo

[@b.w.1386]

If companies are people then their physical locations would make that the company's home. Would that mean you cannot protest outside an abortion clinic?

[@erice3014]

Love Coleman

[@moneygoodmauri7859]

I love this! Coleman Hughes is fantastic.

[@sataniclegion]

I think a lot of people are getting lost in the weeds on this issue. Protesters on a public street outside of a Judges house expressing their dissent on the Judge’s opinion, is not against the law and is certainly not in violation of the federal law conservatives are trying to use (18 USC 1507). Reasons: 1. The first amendment protects an individuals right to protest and or petition their government (which federal judges are a part of) for a redress of grievances, which a dissenting opinion is. 2. Expressing your disagreement (especially in a public forum) about an opinion or position is not equal to intimidation, which that federal law is explaining. 3. In order for that law to apply, the intent of the individuals would need to be that they are willfully trying to intimidate a court official, witness, juror, or Judge to steer an outcome toward their desired result. Also, the person/people would need to attempt or actually engage in conversation with the Judge, et al, about the issue which is causing a disturbance, or doing so on private property as well. Usually when people get arrested for protesting, it’s not the protesting that they are arrested for. It’s the violation of curfew, trespassing, or obstructing business/traffic/ official governmental proceeding(s), etc. Protesting alone is not enough to say if some one is in violation of the law. There is a time, place, and manner rule that has to also be taken into account first. In my opinion, anyone that tries to or does take a position on the issue without taking all the facts of the time, place, and manner of speech into account before they state their position is a damn fool and their opinion on the matter(s) should not be taken seriously.

[@bizbizkaren]

Is it okay for them to make decisions about women’s bodies?

[@willjapheth23789]

I mean, I've had decisions made about my body. Also they aren't, the state laws would be disallowing some decisions.

[@hassanabdaladl]

I would argue that if the integrity of the institution of the supreme Court, had remained strong, then Coleman's argument about how the Supreme Court is above the fray 'as a feature, not as a flaw'. The problem is the institution has become flawed and lost much of its credibility. This is where this idea of the supremacy of the Court, falls apart, unfortunately. There were always partisan nominees, but the process of choosing them, and just throwing away precedent based on clearly elucidated previously held biases, is not the norm of the institution. Also don't forget, the nominees have placed themselves into the doctor's office room, with a pregnant mother and her doctor. I find it a bit rich to think that protesting outside their houses is 'going too far' when they're literally legislating life or death or privacy. And yes, this can be a double edged sword, specifically with the republicans, but this has more to do with the stupidity of a large portion of the American populace than anything else.

[@joshuagarcia8096]

Absolutely