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.

DP. Why are you lying? Wow. I'm sure you're aware a man traveled to Kavanaugh's house for the express purpose of murdering him, right?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/armed-man-arrested-outside-brett-kavanaughs-home-after-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

Lone wackjob with mental health issues who turned himself in. The guy stalking Sotomayor was far more dangerous.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that a “lone whack job with mental health issues” is not a threat?

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.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

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.

DP. Why are you lying? Wow. I'm sure you're aware a man traveled to Kavanaugh's house for the express purpose of murdering him, right?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/armed-man-arrested-outside-brett-kavanaughs-home-after-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

Lone wackjob with mental health issues who turned himself in. The guy stalking Sotomayor was far more dangerous.

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.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

"Particular cases?" Stuff it. At this point it's painfully clear that they aren't even legitimate and shouldn't be hearing or deciding ANY cases. They dishonestly got their seats through lying and deceit and should be impeached for it. And given the magnitude of such an egregious breach you should be angry too.

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.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

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.

Lots. These creeps are just the tip of the iceberg. Can you imagine the outrage if they were threatening the liberal justices?

Increase in threats
There has been a rise in threats against the court amid the national abortion rights debate and protests that have taken place across the US. The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo last month warning law enforcement that there are potential threats to members of the Supreme Court after a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked.

The memo also said Supreme Court police have noticed a major uptick in social media threats of violence, with some currently under investigation. Some of those threats have been directed at the justices and the court building, which is now surrounded by fencing.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html

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.

DP. Why are you lying? Wow. I'm sure you're aware a man traveled to Kavanaugh's house for the express purpose of murdering him, right?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/armed-man-arrested-outside-brett-kavanaughs-home-after-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

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.

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.

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.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

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.

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.

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.

But, but, but...... It's fine as long as it is against somebody we DON'T agree with!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:70 percent of the country despises them. That number will only go up.

They can move their families to Texas or Alabama if they want people groveling.

Where is your source for this figure? Where is the scientific poll data?