Judge Intimidation - Pizza Delivery

[Anonymous]

This is childish and unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. This is bad.

2. When they tried to kill Kavanaugh and the press didn't care, that was worse.

Who is "they"?

Democrats ----> Schumer (elite communist) -----> release the whirlwind!!! -----> Nicholas Roske (street communist) -----> arrested as a threat to Justice Kavanaugh

Comprende vous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sending pizzas is a pretty benign form of protest. I’d have no problem with it if they weren’t ordering the pizzas under the name of the judge’s son who was murdered by someone who was angry at her rulings. This is an implicit threat, which makes it different from ordinary protesting.

Carrying signs and chanting non violent slogans on the public sidewalks near a SC justice’s home is okay.

Plotting to assassinate them is not.

Ordering pizzas to judges homes is okay.

Issuing a threat by invoking the name of the murdered son of a judge is not.

It's actually not.

The law in question prohibits the “picketing and parading” of federal judges and court facilities with the intent of interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.

“The entire country has seen hundreds of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices night after night after night. You turn on your TV and you see violations of this criminal statute over and over and over again,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republian, said at a Senate hearing last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-cour...ervative-s-rcna78678

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending pizzas is a pretty benign form of protest. I’d have no problem with it if they weren’t ordering the pizzas under the name of the judge’s son who was murdered by someone who was angry at her rulings. This is an implicit threat, which makes it different from ordinary protesting.

Carrying signs and chanting non violent slogans on the public sidewalks near a SC justice’s home is okay.

Plotting to assassinate them is not.

Ordering pizzas to judges homes is okay.

Issuing a threat by invoking the name of the murdered son of a judge is not.

It's actually not.

The law in question prohibits the “picketing and parading” of federal judges and court facilities with the intent of interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.

“The entire country has seen hundreds of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices night after night after night. You turn on your TV and you see violations of this criminal statute over and over and over again,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republian, said at a Senate hearing last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-cour...ervative-s-rcna78678

Yup. Which is why people have no effs to give now that some judge is getting pizza deliveries.

Too bad, so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending pizzas is a pretty benign form of protest. I’d have no problem with it if they weren’t ordering the pizzas under the name of the judge’s son who was murdered by someone who was angry at her rulings. This is an implicit threat, which makes it different from ordinary protesting.

Carrying signs and chanting non violent slogans on the public sidewalks near a SC justice’s home is okay.

Plotting to assassinate them is not.

Ordering pizzas to judges homes is okay.

Issuing a threat by invoking the name of the murdered son of a judge is not.

It's actually not.

The law in question prohibits the “picketing and parading” of federal judges and court facilities with the intent of interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.

“The entire country has seen hundreds of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices night after night after night. You turn on your TV and you see violations of this criminal statute over and over and over again,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republian, said at a Senate hearing last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-cour...ervative-s-rcna78678

Picketing in advance of an anticipated ruling would be prohibited, but protesting rulings that have already been issued by the highest court in the land isn’t “interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.” It’s too late at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending pizzas is a pretty benign form of protest. I’d have no problem with it if they weren’t ordering the pizzas under the name of the judge’s son who was murdered by someone who was angry at her rulings. This is an implicit threat, which makes it different from ordinary protesting.

Carrying signs and chanting non violent slogans on the public sidewalks near a SC justice’s home is okay.

Plotting to assassinate them is not.

Ordering pizzas to judges homes is okay.

Issuing a threat by invoking the name of the murdered son of a judge is not.

It's actually not.

The law in question prohibits the “picketing and parading” of federal judges and court facilities with the intent of interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.

“The entire country has seen hundreds of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices night after night after night. You turn on your TV and you see violations of this criminal statute over and over and over again,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republian, said at a Senate hearing last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-cour...ervative-s-rcna78678

Yup. Which is why people have no effs to give now that some judge is getting pizza deliveries.

Too bad, so sad.

There’s a difference between protesting and threatening. Decent, law abiding people don’t threaten people with murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. This is bad.

2. When they tried to kill Kavanaugh and the press didn't care, that was worse.

Who is "they"?

Democrats ----> Schumer (elite communist) -----> release the whirlwind!!! -----> Nicholas Roske (street communist) -----> arrested as a threat to Justice Kavanaugh

Comprende vous?

LMAO look at this clown poster, who thinks Schumer is a "communist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending pizzas is a pretty benign form of protest. I’d have no problem with it if they weren’t ordering the pizzas under the name of the judge’s son who was murdered by someone who was angry at her rulings. This is an implicit threat, which makes it different from ordinary protesting.

Carrying signs and chanting non violent slogans on the public sidewalks near a SC justice’s home is okay.

Plotting to assassinate them is not.

Ordering pizzas to judges homes is okay.

Issuing a threat by invoking the name of the murdered son of a judge is not.

It's actually not.

The law in question prohibits the “picketing and parading” of federal judges and court facilities with the intent of interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.

“The entire country has seen hundreds of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices night after night after night. You turn on your TV and you see violations of this criminal statute over and over and over again,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republian, said at a Senate hearing last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-cour...ervative-s-rcna78678

Picketing in advance of an anticipated ruling would be prohibited, but protesting rulings that have already been issued by the highest court in the land isn’t “interfering or obstructing the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing a judge.” It’s too late at that point.

Maybe it's not such a great idea to issue shitty rulings that go against stare decisis and "settled law?" Maybe it's not such a great idea to lie about your position in your confirmation hearing? Maybe it's not a great idea for a judge to be corrupt and take massive gifts from political insiders?

Maybe if they were better judges people wouldn't be pissed off at them. Ya think?

[Anonymous]

So I guess Korematsu, Dred Scott, and the Brown vs. Board of Education decisions should not have been issued based on Stare Decisis and "settled law".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I guess Korematsu, Dred Scott, and the Brown vs. Board of Education decisions should not have been issued based on Stare Decisis and "settled law".

You are very confused and you obviously need to study US history a little bit closer. Brown vs BOE did not fully overturn plessy for example.

[Anonymous]

In a perfect world, no one would protest in front of judge’s homes in any way shape or form.

But we don’t live in a perfect world. And when people started protesting in front of the homes of the conservative Supreme Court justices, that forever moved the Overton Window of what was considered acceptable behavior.

So like it or not, it’s now acceptable to protest in front of the homes of judges. ANY judges.

The is the world we live in now. Conservatives didn’t make this happen, but we’re going to play by the rules of engagement as they’ve been established by the liberals.


Y’all have no one to blame but yourselves. You shoulda stayed away from those Justices. But you didn’t. Now we’re playing by your own rules. So stop whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know about this? This is what the current administration stands for self serving thugs, crooks and all around ignorant bastards. Knowledge is the enemy. I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone can justify supporting this criminal enterprise.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1EyjSZ

Puleez. You guys protest in front of judges houses all the time. ABC has received numerous threats and had to wear bulletproof vests because of democratic violence.

Get your own house in order.

Cute that you think ABC’s death threats are from Dems. Laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I guess Korematsu, Dred Scott, and the Brown vs. Board of Education decisions should not have been issued based on Stare Decisis and "settled law".

And I’m SURE these Stare Decisis advocates wouldn’t trade their firstborn child for a reversal of Heller v. DC, McDonald v. Chicago or Bruen v. NYSRPC.


Stare Decisis!!!! (As long as it’s something they agree with)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know about this? This is what the current administration stands for self serving thugs, crooks and all around ignorant bastards. Knowledge is the enemy. I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone can justify supporting this criminal enterprise.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1EyjSZ

Puleez. You guys protest in front of judges houses all the time. ABC has received numerous threats and had to wear bulletproof vests because of democratic violence.

Get your own house in order.

Cute that you think ABC’s death threats are from Dems. Laughable.

Pathetic gaslighting to try and suggest they aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a perfect world, no one would protest in front of judge’s homes in any way shape or form.

But we don’t live in a perfect world. And when people started protesting in front of the homes of the conservative Supreme Court justices, that forever moved the Overton Window of what was considered acceptable behavior.

So like it or not, it’s now acceptable to protest in front of the homes of judges. ANY judges.

The is the world we live in now. Conservatives didn’t make this happen, but we’re going to play by the rules of engagement as they’ve been established by the liberals.


Y’all have no one to blame but yourselves. You shoulda stayed away from those Justices. But you didn’t. Now we’re playing by your own rules. So stop whining.

Drink! MAGA false equivalency! Protesting equal sending veiled threats about a judge's dead kid? Yeah. Exactly the same. And please..who set a worse precedent? people protesting in front of homes after rulings or a mob trespassing, trashing, and injuring/killing people at the capitol?

Take a seat, my friend.