SCOTUS Protection Request

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did not assume. I was interacting with a specific poster or posters who made the following statements:

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then there is this guy......
I have to wonder how many more anonymous threats they have received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

+100
The fact that the Marshal of the Court took the unprecedented step to write to MD and VA officials tells me there have been threats we have not heard about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then there is this guy......
I have to wonder how many more anonymous threats they have received.

They deserve the same amount of protection as Ruby Freeman got. Maybe the FBI will suggest that they leave their house for a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did not assume. I was interacting with a specific poster or posters who made the following statements:

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

None of which say anything about protection for some but not all.

The facts remain. The Court has ruled that a 35 foot buffer zone is not allowed and that events similar to what is happening are "quiet" and "private". The Court itself has ruled that nothing can be done and that nothng is happening. Can't have different rules just because they think they are more important than everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

+100
The fact that the Marshal of the Court took the unprecedented step to write to MD and VA officials tells me there have been threats we have not heard about.

Ahhh boo hoo hoo. I’ll bet you that those “threats” come from forced birthers. It’s their M.O. It’s what they’ve done for fifty years.

Honestly, pro choice activists are more like to try and do a knit in. The forced birthers have to make it look like the peaceful majority is as crazy as the forced birthers are.

[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.

The irony…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

+100
The fact that the Marshal of the Court took the unprecedented step to write to MD and VA officials tells me there have been threats we have not heard about.

They mention NO THREATS, they merely mention nuisance laws. As you can see justices receive ROUND THE CLOCK protection from US Marshalls, even though they aren’t technically legally entitled to it. They are not entitled to break off peaceful protests.

[Anonymous]

That's the problem with an out-of-control Supreme Court such as we have. If they are spitting in the eye of the Executive Branch, along with spitting in the eye of a big chunk of the Legislature and many states they don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the problem with an out-of-control Supreme Court such as we have. If they are spitting in the eye of the Executive Branch, along with spitting in the eye of a big chunk of the Legislature and many states they don't have much of a leg to stand on.

SCOTUS lacks any strong ability to enforce their decisions in places where they lack agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then there is this guy......
I have to wonder how many more anonymous threats they have received.

They deserve the same amount of protection as Ruby Freeman got. Maybe the FBI will suggest that they leave their house for a month.

+1000. And Ruby Freeman didn't even do anything wrong. Unlike these illegitimate SCOTUS justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

+100
The fact that the Marshal of the Court took the unprecedented step to write to MD and VA officials tells me there have been threats we have not heard about.

Tardigrade playing world's smallest violin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define threatened?
And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?

+100
The fact that the Marshal of the Court took the unprecedented step to write to MD and VA officials tells me there have been threats we have not heard about.

They mention NO THREATS, they merely mention nuisance laws. As you can see justices receive ROUND THE CLOCK protection from US Marshalls, even though they aren’t technically legally entitled to it. They are not entitled to break off peaceful protests.

In the letter: "Since then, protest activity at Justices' homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased."

[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.

I believe in protecting institutions that uphold the rule of law, and the Supreme Court is not one of them.