This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A quote in the Washington Post caught my attention when it dealt with a topic that is top-of-mind in the fallout from the leak of a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

When are protests appropriate and, more to the point, where should they be allowed?

Even at the homes of Supreme Court justices in the wake of the leaked opinion?

Here is the Post’s story on the subject:

“Notable & Quotable: Homes

“We want people to protest peacefully if they want to—to protest.”

Press secretary Jen Psaki at a May 5 White House briefing:

“Q: These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices.  Is that the kind of thing this President wants to help your side make their point?

“MS. PSAKI: Look, I think the President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.  We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected.  We want people to protest peacefully if they want to—to protest.  That is certainly what the President’s view would be.

“Q: So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?

“MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”

For all Psaki’s credibility as the president’s press secretary (in my opinion, she has done a good job in a tough position, but she is leaving the post to join MSNBC), I wish she would have gone firmly on record against protests outside justices’ homes.

Further, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning that an outfit known as Ruth Sent Us is inviting people to harass six “extremist justices.”  The group, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, published the locations of the justices’ homes in a map on its website.

In one case the other day, a women walked through the Chevy Chase neighborhood and paused to stick fliers on her fence, a tree and utility boxes.  She was conducting her own protest right in in front of the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In another case – I don’t include this because it, in any way, rivals abortion protests — the Oregonian newspaper reported over the weekend that “dozens of mothers and their supporters gathered at Woodstock Park and walked to Governor Kate Brown’s house nearby.

“The group of mothers, many holding roses, formed a circle outside Brown’s house and held hands to share their stories about their child or loved ones.”

The location may have been suspect, but the good news here – if “good news” is the accurate description – is that this group of mothers, on Mothers’ Day, was peaceful and respectful.

Everyone has the right to protest, but protesting or demonstrating at the homes of public officials shouldn’t be allowed.

For me, all of this recalled to mind experiences I had during my time involved in labor dispute issues – two for the State of Oregon, and one when I lobbied for a major health care provider in the state.

In the State of Oregon issue, I was assigned to handle media relations for management during two different state employee strikes many years ago.  In both cases, some employees were so riled up that they protested at the homes of state management officials. 

Those protests should have been banned and the protesters should have been told to leave, or be subject to arrest if they refused.  Allow them to picket at state agency sites?  Yes.  But protests at managers’ homes?  No.

In the other example when I represented the major health care provider in Oregon, union leaders thought it would be a good idea, when the provider’s board members were staying at a Portland hotel, to protest at the doors of their hotel rooms.

These union leaders were demanding that provider hold a union election even though employees had not voted to hold such an election.

Should that have been allowed?  No.

There is a time and a place for protests. 

The time should be up to those who want to protest.  The place should be in the public square where such protests are legal, however over-the-top they may turn out to be.