Reply to SCOTUS Protection Request

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "SCOTUS Protection Request"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

It's next year.  Moore v. Harper.  They already granted cert.[/quote]

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

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics