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

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Since the argument was that abortion rights aren't expressly allowed in the constitution it could be sent back to states I would say the same should be said of SCOTUS's desire for privacy. If it isn't in the constitution then I guess they can STFU.

Absolutely Freedom of Speech cuts both ways.

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

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

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.

Imo YES. Make them uncomfortable

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

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.

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

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

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.

"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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Hell yes. They are politicians not judges. Protest away

Loving all of the interviews lately, David!

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.

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.

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

Excellent interview. You two should discuss more often!

Awesome interview.

Yes, protest EVERYTHING!

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.

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.

*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!!!!*

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Excellent interview.

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

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!

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

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

How would America nonviolently break away from great Britain?

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.

Great interview!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

No justice, no peace.

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?

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.

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

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

David, I’m curious if a law requiring vasectomies for single men went into place, if it would be enough to show up at their homes? Hearing two men talk about decorum when women are losing their rights, is commonplace.

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.

I love Coleman!

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.

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

I love this! Coleman Hughes is fantastic.

No. Intimidation is wrong on BOTH sides.

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...

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.

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.?? 🤷‍♂️

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

I’m constantly purged out of your podcast site. I have to subscribe everytime. I don’t care to have to do it over and over but..David could you be kind enough to explain the why of this situation? I will welcome your responses.

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

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.

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

I do think there needs to be a distinction between public figure and public servants that make laws.

The problem with what he's saying about optics, and comparing that to the Civil rights movement, is that MLK was widely unpopular with a majority of whites at the time of his death. Even Jackie O said some bad things about him. Most people will believe what they believe regardless of the other side, regardless of the facts.

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?

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

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

Nice to see D Pak talking to black Sam Harris

There were some horrendously bad takes in this video. I love all your stuff, so I was really surprised by this. While your guest is right about democracy as a release valve, that's IF democracy is working. When we have all these structural things: Electoral College, gerrymandering, the Senate, etc. that are anti-democratic, then we can't simply vote for better representation. Right now, we have 2 shitty parties and can only vote for harm reduction by voting Democrat. Even the Democrats are corrupted by corporate interests and they use a rotating cast of villains to make sure nothing gets passed to help the people. Sure, they aren't 1/10th as bad as the Republicans but they aren't representative of the people. How many young people are in Congress? How many minorities? How many poor people? It's only the privileged that want to push civility and they try to pretend like MLK and Gandhi weren't killed for their efforts or that their nonviolent ideologies weren't seen as more preferable to violent groups that were applying pressure at the same time. I daresay that the nonviolent movements benefited greatly from the so-called violent extremists. The Founders also expected that democracy would occasionally necessitate graver actions than merely voting; protest, for instance, is in the 1st Amendment, and protesting is all the people are doing at the judges' homes.

Absolutely ok.!!!

Well, certain people think it is OK to demonstrate inside the capitol during an official proceeding. Surely these same people are OK with a protest outside a justices home?

Nice seeing two graduates of deadpan university talk to each other.

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

All I knew about Hughes is that he argued against reparations, against Coates, I believe and he also wrote for Quillette:/ For what thats worth. And his face says he takes himself very seriously.

Love Coleman

Wow, this guy listens to David lay out an example where some protests decide to break the law by blocking a road because they feel the need to do so in order for the protests to be visible. Yet to that the guest responds by using the example of Rosa Parks. He said that she broke the law & was arrested dozens of times, but that she only did what she did because she felt that she needed to so in order to effect necessary change. He refuses to see the similarity in both of those things. I don’t know why David didn’t explain to him (or perhaps remind him) that all of the people & movements he (the guest) mentioned, were extremely unpopular at the time that they existed & were happening. It wasn’t until way later that they were painted in the light that we see them in today. I could tell by the way that the guest talked about them, that he actually knows very little about them. His knowledge of them is quite superficial.

Absolutely

At this point in time do we really want to be correct in our behavior