SCOTUS Protection Request

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question for you: If one of those justices, or their child, was injured or killed due to lack of protection, do you think whoever did it should be prosecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

OK, so can you identify which justices decided on a case that helped end elections? Which case are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question for you: If one of those justices, or their child, was injured or killed due to lack of protection, do you think whoever did it should be prosecuted?

I think that if they overthrow democracy next year then it's going be ugly for everyone. But of course any murder should be prosecuted. Who the victim is doesn't matter. They deserve the exact same treatment as every other American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

OK, so can you identify which justices decided on a case that helped end elections? Which case are you talking about?

It's next year. Moore v. Harper. They already granted cert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

OK, so can you identify which justices decided on a case that helped end elections? Which case are you talking about?

It's next year. Moore v. Harper. They already granted cert.

Right. PP said that any justice that does that should no longer be entitled to protection. It hasn't happened, so why no protection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[…]But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The Supreme Court said it’s acceptable to harass clinic workers at their home. I’m not sure why you think that’s okay for one group of people but not for these paid shills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The Supreme Court said it’s acceptable to harass clinic workers at their home. I’m not sure why you think that’s okay for one group of people but not for these paid shills.

There is a difference between:
1. the right to protest
2. when a government employee should be assigned protection

The two can be true at the same time.

[Anonymous]

I am sure the Federalist Society is already paying for protection. What they want is for protests to stop outside their homes so they may enjoy their properties. This is more of a nuisance than a security concern. Too bad. I hope all their neighbors host lawn parties full of protesters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The Supreme Court said it’s acceptable to harass clinic workers at their home. I’m not sure why you think that’s okay for one group of people but not for these paid shills.

Exactly. Unfortunately for the Justices they have already ruled that this behavior is protected by the 1st Amendment. Can't have different rules for different people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The Supreme Court said it’s acceptable to harass clinic workers at their home. I’m not sure why you think that’s okay for one group of people but not for these paid shills.

Exactly. Unfortunately for the Justices they have already ruled that this behavior is protected by the 1st Amendment. Can't have different rules for different people.

As soon as they restore the right for clinicians to have privacy and peace in their own homes, they can have the same. Until then, they can reap what they sow. Exactly 0 Supreme Court justices have been assassinated, while forced birthers have already murdered multiple doctors. There is certainly a monopoly on violence, and it’s on their side already. They should be fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

OK, so can you identify which justices decided on a case that helped end elections? Which case are you talking about?

It's next year. Moore v. Harper. They already granted cert.

Right. PP said that any justice that does that should no longer be entitled to protection. It hasn't happened, so why no protection?

Because they don't need anything more than they already have. They have protection. There are over 4,000 US marshals. None of which should be wasting their time on run of the mill protests.

How's that leak investigation going? Have they interviewed Ginni yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, so what you are saying is that entitlement to protection is based on whether you agree with their decisions.

You would agree, right, that if the Dobbs decision had gone the other way, the justices in the majority would be entitled to protection from angry anti-abortion activists?

No. It's based on fidelity to America and our demicratic experiment.

As for abortion, which I wasn't talking about. They should be held to the exact same standard that they created.

OK, so can you identify which justices decided on a case that helped end elections? Which case are you talking about?

It's next year. Moore v. Harper. They already granted cert.

Right. PP said that any justice that does that should no longer be entitled to protection. It hasn't happened, so why no protection?

Because they don't need anything more than they already have. They have protection. There are over 4,000 US marshals. None of which should be wasting their time on run of the mill protests.

How's that leak investigation going? Have they interviewed Ginni yet?

You’re not the PP right? PP was clear that it was the current conservative justice who did not require protection because of their hypothetical future decisions.

If you are saying that SC justices in general do not require additional protection, that is a different thing.

[Anonymous]

There is zero proof Ginni has done anything wrong. None.

Also, are you okay with people who disagree with the 3 who dissented getting daily protests, their churches visited and their Children’s schools published.