Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "SCOTUS Protection Request"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] No one is saying the justices should be threatened. And no one is threatening them.[/quote] Hold up, how do you define "no one"? Because it is a fact that at least one of them has absolutely been threated.[/quote] They weren't actually threatened. Dude turned himself in before doing anything.[/quote] How do you define threatened? And why do you assume the general public would know about all threats?[/quote] +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. [twitter]https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1543336871241072643[/twitter] [/quote] 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. [/quote] In the letter: "Since then, protest activity at Justices' homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased."[/quote] The justices are upset. She needs to be seen to be doing something. A protest is an expression of first amendment rights. It’s not a threat. Finally I don’t believe her. This is what happens when you lie all the time. [/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