Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

Very true.

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For anyone concerned about their safety, impeaching these clearly illegitimate, unfit Justices for perjury and removing them from the court would be a step in the right direction where it comes to restoring trust and accountability in the Supreme Court.

"They're clearly illegitimate and unfit because they didn't vote the way I wanted (and expected) them to!" I imagine your entire life has been filled with these tantrums, over one thing or another.

Anonymous wrote:I think the protests are fine.

You reap what you sow.

Anonymous wrote:We don't need new laws to protect Justices. We've been repeatedly told this by Republicans, whenever it was children being shot in their schools, kids in a nightclub, people at worship at their synagogue or black church...

Anonymous wrote:Just let the Justices get concealed carry permits and strap themselves up with pistols under their robes, and equip their homes with AR-15s.

Republicans have repeatedly told us ad nauseam this is the solution and that nothing else can or should be done to protect anyone.

Own it, Republicans. If you want laws passed it needs to protect EVERYONE, starting with gun laws. Otherwise it's just pure hypocrisy for you to be complaining about threats to Justices while you've ignored threats to every other American for the last 50 years.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For anyone concerned about their safety, impeaching these clearly illegitimate, unfit Justices for perjury and removing them from the court would be a step in the right direction where it comes to restoring trust and accountability in the Supreme Court.

Anonymous wrote:Just let the Justices get concealed carry permits and strap themselves up with pistols under their robes, and equip their homes with AR-15s.

Republicans have repeatedly told us ad nauseam this is the solution and that nothing else can or should be done to protect anyone.

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.

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?

In this case he actually wasn't. He was the one who turned himself in.

The main point was in taking issue with your insinuated conflation of that lone wack job with every single person exercising their legitimate and protected First Amendment rights to protest at their houses.

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.

Agreed. You disagree with the Supreme Court decision and feel the judges should be threatened. Do you hear yourself?? Are you even an attorney - can you honestly say you understand the law?

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.

Why are you posting blatant misinformation. Yes, justices have been threatened. That is unacceptable. End of story. This is not a partisan issue.

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:

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.

The protestors are on public property. I don’t think justices deserve special protection from peaceful protests. They already have effective protection against actual threats—the man who traveled to Kavanaugh’s house was arrested.

They’ve decided to live in liberal neighborhoods among people who disagree with them. The conservative justices can move out to rural MD or Va if they’d like to feel more comfortable.

PP you replied to. I hear you, but putting myself in their shoes, with my minor children, I would not want to subject someone else to that. Do unto others. It's not Kavanaugh's daughters' fault that they have a beer-obsessed, intellectual dwarf of a progenitor. They should not suffer because he chose to make all women and children suffer... including them. He may think that he can buy his way out his daughters' potential future abortions, but it's not that simple, so he actually is putting them in harm's way already.

So no.