SCOTUS Protection Request

[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.

Merrick Garland has repeatedly proven that he is not SCOTUS material. He is behaving as Biden's "wing man."
The fact that he refuses to enforce federal law, yet is more than willing to treat parents who protest school boards as domestic terrorists is most enlightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She has supported overthrowing the government. Supporting election fraud is wrong. She’s a PoS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She has supported overthrowing the government. Supporting election fraud is wrong. She’s a PoS.

Didn’t she say she would speak with the Jan 6 committee? Has she done so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Merrick Garland has repeatedly proven that he is not SCOTUS material. He is behaving as Biden's "wing man."
The fact that he refuses to enforce federal law, yet is more than willing to treat parents who protest school boards as domestic terrorists is most enlightening.

Please! You lost all credibility because Thomas has literally been Trump’s wing man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She has supported overthrowing the government. Supporting election fraud is wrong. She’s a PoS.

Didn’t she say she would speak with the Jan 6 committee? Has she done so?

She’s a total PoS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

You are not very bright. You are completely blinded by partisan politics if you don’t see what she did is wrong.

[Anonymous]

According to the Court's own standards in Kennedy v. Bremerton these "protests" are quiet and private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

No one is saying the justices should be threatened. And no one is threatening them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She has supported overthrowing the government. Supporting election fraud is wrong. She’s a PoS.

There is zero evidence she has done such a thing. None!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. That is not true. You assumed that it had to do with ideology.

Under the standards they've set these "protests" are quiet, private and protected by the 1st Amendment. It doesn't matter which Justice it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

No one is saying the justices should be threatened. And no one is threatening them.

Hold up, how do you define "no one"? Because it is a fact that at least one of them has absolutely been threated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She has supported overthrowing the government. Supporting election fraud is wrong. She’s a PoS.

There is zero evidence she has done such a thing. None!

There's lots of evidence of that. What there isn't hard evidence of is that she leaked the abortion decision. She's just the most likely suspect on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

No one is saying the justices should be threatened. And no one is threatening them.

Hold up, how do you define "no one"? Because it is a fact that at least one of them has absolutely been threated.

They weren't actually threatened. Dude turned himself in before doing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course not.

You see.... the standard is simple.
If they are liberal Justices, or Justices who vote in a way which liberals approve, they are most deserving of protection.
If they aren't liberal or don't vote the right way, they absolutely should be protested and threatened.

They already receive security and the Democratic congress overwhelmingly voted in June to extend that security to their immediate family members. They want the protests to stop, because they are a nuisance on their enjoyment of their property. Too bad, they already voted that kind of protest falls under first amendment.