SCOTUS Protection Request

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

This is the wet dream of the leftists here.

Don't like a ruling? Then, get out and protest and threaten the Justices who ruled in a manner which you don't approve. Keep at it until you force those with whom you disagree out. It has been your tactic with so many issues.

It won't work though. They have proved that they won't be intimidated by the crazies who think it is their "right" to protest and threaten to force the Justices to change their votes.

The same people who justified the riots during the summer of 2020, claiming that it was "only property damage" or "the ends justify the means" are the people condoning this crap. It's all "civil rights" until someone is hurt or killed. And, even then..... the leftists manage to attempt to justify their threats and violence in absurd ways.

This is why so many are voting out the Democrats who just won't condemn the actions their party is taking.

Of the 450 murders committed by political extremists in the past decade, 4% have been committed by left-wing extremists. 75% were committed by right-wing extremists.

We're not the party of threats and violence.

LOL.
James Hodgkinson. He didn't kill anyone, but his intent was to murder many Republicans.
Nicholas John Roske. Again, he didn't murder anyone but his intent was to do just that.
And, I am sure the people who murdered David Dorn were not classified as "political extremists" even though they were looting and destroying as a result of the George Floyd protests.

And, then, let's remember the "summer of love" killings in Seattle at CHAZ, Again, probably not classified as "political extremists."

Hodgkinson was a mentally ill homeless guy living out of his car. Roske likewise a mentally ill guy. Those were lone wolves. Dorn was killed by right wing Boogaloo accelerationists. The CHAZ was started by anarchocommunists and ended up run by criminal street gangs. These are extreme examples but do not necessarily have a damn thing to do with pro-choice activists peacefully protesting outside the homes of SCOTUS Justices. If you're trying to connect dots you're sloppily coloring all over the page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

But that is not what they said, is it?

It is what they said. Even Collins and Manchin admitted they were lied to by the Justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

But that is not what they said, is it?

It is what they said. Even Collins and Manchin admitted they were lied to by the Justices.

They didn’t lie. They might have said Roe is precedent, which was true, and Collins took that as they would not overturn Roe. She heard what she wanted to hear.

If she truly feels misled, she can carve out an exception to the filibuster and codify Roe. She hasn’t done that so perhaps she is the one who is lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

Sure you personally can think that without being a hypocrite, but the entire GOP is currently dedicated to reframing Jan 6 as a big deal over nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

[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.

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.

This is a good point. They want the prestige and access that would otherwise come from their appointments.

They are free to move, just like women are for abortions now.

They demand a higher level of protection than the rest of us and as long as protests are peaceful, too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

I am not a forced-birther. I was responding to the person who appeared to say that any member of the GOP could not claim that "violent protest" is wrong. And also possibly imply that violent protest is henceforth justified because of 1/6.
I am a registered democrat who thinks that certain things are morally/ethically/legally wrong or right regardless of the political party involved.

[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.

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.

This is a good point. They want the prestige and access that would otherwise come from their appointments.

They are free to move, just like women are for abortions now.

They demand a higher level of protection than the rest of us and as long as protests are peaceful, too bad.

So are you saying that protests would not happen is these justices lived in the most conservative parts of the DMV? If not, why does where they live matter?

[Anonymous]

And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

I am not a forced-birther. I was responding to the person who appeared to say that any member of the GOP could not claim that "violent protest" is wrong. And also possibly imply that violent protest is henceforth justified because of 1/6.
I am a registered democrat who thinks that certain things are morally/ethically/legally wrong or right regardless of the political party involved.

What I meant was the GOP doesn't get to simultaneously point to protests from the summer of 2020 as evidence of moral decay and violence by the left (as one poster in this thread is indeed doing) AND declare in their national party platform that Jan. 6th was "legitimate political discourse", which they officially did in February of this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

That's exactly what they did - they showed the nation their unvarnished political bias and religious taint, and injected the judicial process with disdain.

They lacked impartiality and knew in advance they would overturn it, given the opportunity, and deliberately and deceitfully misled the Senate.

Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

I am not a forced-birther. I was responding to the person who appeared to say that any member of the GOP could not claim that "violent protest" is wrong. And also possibly imply that violent protest is henceforth justified because of 1/6.
I am a registered democrat who thinks that certain things are morally/ethically/legally wrong or right regardless of the political party involved.

What I meant was the GOP doesn't get to simultaneously point to protests from the summer of 2020 as evidence of moral decay and violence by the left (as one poster in this thread is indeed doing) AND declare in their national party platform that Jan. 6th was "legitimate political discourse", which they officially did in February of this year.

Helpful. That wasn't clear from your post. What you describe is certainly hypocrisy.

But it remains that the logic used by the poster I originally responded to was very flawed.

If I previously cheered the murder of one man as a good thing and then later said that the murder of another man was a bad thing, I would be a hypocrite. But it wouldn't make the second murder justified, or not a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

But that is not what they said, is it?

If you actually read the FULL text from their hearings, that’s exactly what they said. But you and your ilk rely only on sound bites that fit your narrative. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

This is the wet dream of the leftists here.

Don't like a ruling? Then, get out and protest and threaten the Justices who ruled in a manner which you don't approve. Keep at it until you force those with whom you disagree out. It has been your tactic with so many issues.

It won't work though. They have proved that they won't be intimidated by the crazies who think it is their "right" to protest and threaten to force the Justices to change their votes.

The same people who justified the riots during the summer of 2020, claiming that it was "only property damage" or "the ends justify the means" are the people condoning this crap. It's all "civil rights" until someone is hurt or killed. And, even then..... the leftists manage to attempt to justify their threats and violence in absurd ways.

This is why so many are voting out the Democrats who just won't condemn the actions their party is taking.

Of the 450 murders committed by political extremists in the past decade, 4% have been committed by left-wing extremists. 75% were committed by right-wing extremists.

We're not the party of threats and violence.

LOL.
James Hodgkinson. He didn't kill anyone, but his intent was to murder many Republicans.
Nicholas John Roske. Again, he didn't murder anyone but his intent was to do just that.
And, I am sure the people who murdered David Dorn were not classified as "political extremists" even though they were looting and destroying as a result of the George Floyd protests.

And, then, let's remember the "summer of love" killings in Seattle at CHAZ, Again, probably not classified as "political extremists."

+100
iNcOnVeNiEt FaCtS