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

I think it’s a great idea. These judges need to know that they don’t exist in bubbles.

This is free speech. And if you’re a judge, and you’re making unpopular rulings, you need to accept that some people are going to protest in front of your house.


I’m totally fine with it. On what planet is this “intimidation”?


So weird.

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.

And sending pizzas to family members. This whole pizza thing is BECAUSE the judge's son was killed by someone disguised as a delivery person.
This is a direct threat fueled on by the President himself.

These pizza deliveries are domestic terrorism. I hope the perpetrators are caught and face the appropriate consequences.

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

You have released the whirlwind.

Little late to complain about it now.

Right? Amazing how they memory hole any inconvenient truths. Not threatening at all...

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement rebuking Chuck Schumer for comments the Senate minority leader made about Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising nomination fights.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said, turning to look at the Supreme Court building.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/schumer-roberts-threats-supreme-court/index.html

Schumer was quoting Kavanaugh himself in that bananas hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.

You progressives wanted "No Justice, No Peace".

Now what?

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice? Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide? Upholding rule of law? And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives want rule of law fairly applied, and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges

Ah yes, progressives, the people who "want rule of law fairly applied."

{Record scratch} 1973

Progressive: i'd like an abortion.

Conservative: well, it's against the law.

Progressive: the law is against the law! Read the constitution.

Conservative: what? Where does the Constitution say that?

Progressive: uh, well, thats what, uh, "due process" means. Yeah, yeah, due process. That's abortions.

{Skip to 2022}

Supreme Court: "due process" obviously doesnt mean abortion

Progressive: " we know where you live"

lol, you wasted all that time typing that tripe out and then wasted our time by making us read it?

I know, right? Incoherent tripe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.

You progressives wanted "No Justice, No Peace".

Now what?

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice? Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide? Upholding rule of law? And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives want rule of law fairly applied, and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges

Ah yes, progressives, the people who "want rule of law fairly applied."

{Record scratch} 1973

Progressive: i'd like an abortion.

Conservative: well, it's against the law.

Progressive: the law is against the law! Read the constitution.

Conservative: what? Where does the Constitution say that?

Progressive: uh, well, thats what, uh, "due process" means. Yeah, yeah, due process. That's abortions.

{Skip to 2022}

Supreme Court: "due process" obviously doesnt mean abortion

Progressive: " we know where you live"

In US law and other systems of common law, precedents are considered to be binding and persuasive sources of law to be upheld, following the principle of stare decisis.

Neil Gorsuch, 2017 Confirmation Hearing: "Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Brett Kavanaugh, 2018 Confirmation Hearing: Roe is an "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times" and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is "precedent on precedent."

Amy Coney Barrett, 2020 Confirmation Hearing: While there have been calls for the overturn of Roe, "that does not mean that Roe should be overruled."

Stare decisis, until activist judges decide the law is no longer the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.

You progressives wanted "No Justice, No Peace".

Now what?

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice? Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide? Upholding rule of law? And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives want rule of law fairly applied, and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges

Ah yes, progressives, the people who "want rule of law fairly applied."

{Record scratch} 1973

Progressive: i'd like an abortion.

Conservative: well, it's against the law.

Progressive: the law is against the law! Read the constitution.

Conservative: what? Where does the Constitution say that?

Progressive: uh, well, thats what, uh, "due process" means. Yeah, yeah, due process. That's abortions.

{Skip to 2022}

Supreme Court: "due process" obviously doesnt mean abortion

Progressive: " we know where you live"

lol, you wasted all that time typing that tripe out and then wasted our time by making us read it?

There is nothing creepy or wrong about any peaceful protest.

Any theat, veiled or explicit, toward any judge, liberal or conservative, is VERY WRONG. Any threat toward the families of the judges, liberal or conservative is very wrong.

Whoever you are, progressive or MAGA, if you make threats, you deserve to be punished.

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

Anyone who really knows and understands trump knows and understands that he has behaved like a mob boss since the 80's-any times he's in trouble he intimidates and hurts people to quiet them. Such a good christian he is This behavior is what MAGA cheers on-all you so called MAGA christians will have a lot to answer for.

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.

And sending pizzas to family members. This whole pizza thing is BECAUSE the judge's son was killed by someone disguised as a delivery person.
This is a direct threat fueled on by the President himself.

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.

I haven’t heard of democrat violence and can’t find any stories about it. Criminals who take advantage of large protests don’t count- they are not political, they’re just taking advantage of the situation.

We’re not the gun lovers. We’re the people who want to end wars.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.

You progressives wanted "No Justice, No Peace".

Now what?

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice? Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide? Upholding rule of law? And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives want rule of law fairly applied, and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges

Ah yes, progressives, the people who "want rule of law fairly applied."

{Record scratch} 1973

Progressive: i'd like an abortion.

Conservative: well, it's against the law.

Progressive: the law is against the law! Read the constitution.

Conservative: what? Where does the Constitution say that?

Progressive: uh, well, thats what, uh, "due process" means. Yeah, yeah, due process. That's abortions.

{Skip to 2022}

Supreme Court: "due process" obviously doesnt mean abortion

Progressive: " we know where you live"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.

You progressives wanted "No Justice, No Peace".

Now what?

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice? Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide? Upholding rule of law? And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives want rule of law fairly applied, and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges

Doesn't seem this thread is going the way the OP had hoped.

Remember this? Nothing at all intimidating about these morons:

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-court/free-speech-federal-crime-protesters-are-still-marching-conservative-s-rcna78678