SCOTUS Protection Request

[Anonymous]

I used to think we should provide protection for the SCOTUS but honestly, I think they should have to deal with the fallout of their decisions. The are protecting nuts to carry guns everywhere… so just deal with it. Just like American school kids who must do active shooter drills. Upset that women are protesting in your yard, oh well shouldn’t have taken away rights.


Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Especially since they decided to take up the independent state legisature theory case!

[Anonymous]

Evidently, Merrick Garland agrees with you, OP.

He has failed to enforce Federal Law code 18 sect. 1507 which prohibits protesting at the homes of judges.

Even after there was an arrest made because someone traveled cross country with the intent to assassinate on of the Justices. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

Totally agree. If you believe in rule of law (and we do, don't we?), you can't be okay with vigilante justice against a public official. You just can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

Totally agree. If you believe in rule of law (and we do, don't we?), you can't be okay with vigilante justice against a public official. You just can't.

But, but, but...... It's fine as long as it is against somebody we DON'T agree with!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

Totally agree. If you believe in rule of law (and we do, don't we?), you can't be okay with vigilante justice against a public official. You just can't.

The current supreme court does not believe in rule of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The protestors are on public property. I don’t think justices deserve special protection from peaceful protests. They already have effective protection against actual threats—the man who traveled to Kavanaugh’s house was arrested.

They’ve decided to live in liberal neighborhoods among people who disagree with them. The conservative justices can move out to rural MD or Va if they’d like to feel more comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Evidently, Merrick Garland agrees with you, OP.

He has failed to enforce Federal Law code 18 sect. 1507 which prohibits protesting at the homes of judges.

Even after there was an arrest made because someone traveled cross country with the intent to assassinate on of the Justices. Nothing to see here.

Oh, the irony of Merrick Garland being expected to bail the justices who took his stolen seat out of their predicaments that they caused with their bad decisions. They need to take some personal responsibility, not expect the government to do it for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidently, Merrick Garland agrees with you, OP.

He has failed to enforce Federal Law code 18 sect. 1507 which prohibits protesting at the homes of judges.

Even after there was an arrest made because someone traveled cross country with the intent to assassinate on of the Justices. Nothing to see here.

Oh, the irony of Merrick Garland being expected to bail the justices who took his stolen seat out of their predicaments that they caused with their bad decisions. They need to take some personal responsibility, not expect the government to do it for them.

Lol. I agree. They brought this on themselves.

[Anonymous]

So they weren't willing to give healthcare patients protection from anti-abortion zealots, but want said protections for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Have to agree. Really don’t have any sympathy for their discomfort. They know in their hearts that their opinions have turned constitutional law on its head. They shouldn’t be surprised that people can see right through their phony logic and made up doctrines. Choices have consequences. One of them is angry citizens who have every right to voice their displeasure. It’s called the first amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

Totally agree. If you believe in rule of law (and we do, don't we?), you can't be okay with vigilante justice against a public official. You just can't.

The current supreme court does not believe in rule of law.

And in less than one year they'll show that they don't believe in democracy either.

Eliminating elections is not "just doing their job".

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear, you are saying that *certain justices* should not have protections right? You are not advocating for any principle that says supreme court justices in general do not require protection, correct?

What that boils down to is that you disagree with their decisions on particular cases and are vengeful.

Look, that is fine. But let's just call it what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, you are saying that *certain justices* should not have protections right? You are not advocating for any principle that says supreme court justices in general do not require protection, correct?

What that boils down to is that you disagree with their decisions on particular cases and are vengeful.

Look, that is fine. But let's just call it what it is.

No. Any justice that takes part in the ending of elections. Any justice that gives legitimacy to ending democracy should not be immune.