Pro abortion protests at SC Justices homes are a violation of Federal Law.

[Nostra]

yes, wonder where Garland is, since Mark Meadows has been in contempt of congress six months ago. Certainly is a partisan to just sit on that.

But about the protests, how does it compare to...

Protesters gather at Minnesota governor's mansion over lockdown, chant 'open up'

Protesters gathered outside of the Minnesota governor's mansion Friday rebelling against coronavirus stay-at-home orders and demanding an end the lockdown, chanting "open up."

www.foxnews.com

Groups protest outside Capitol, governor's mansion over state closures

ALBANY — Well over 100 protesters stood outside the state Capitol to decry the closure...

www.timesunion.com

It doesn't compare since those protests do not violate a Federal statute like the ones by the Baby Killer Cult outside SC Justices' homes.

Next dumbass "whataboutism"?

 

[WEATHER53]

Government breaking laws or imposing them without authorization plus ignoring ones they are suppose to enforce, became the rage when TDS took over and these methods were used to defeat him and punish his thinking supporters and begin the suspension of reality that we are Still currently under.
Once that cat got out it’s not going back in. Governance desperately needs to return to working for Americans and not illegals, criminals, sexually confused, deadbeats and chronic safe spacers with their hoax medical cris.

 

[Viktor]

Where is Merrick Garland? Too busy chasing mom's at school board meetings? Saving the world from "climate change"?

People are threatening SC Justices and their families at their homes, in direct and blatant violation of Federal Law.

DOJ silent on abortion protests at justices' homes despite federal law prohibiting 'pickets' to influence case

Despite the language included in the federal statute, Attorney General Merrick Garland has not issued a public statement addressing the protests outside conservative justices' homes.

www.foxnews.com

The protestors have a leader in their threats-Senator Chuckie Schumer. He threatened the SC last year. He should be disbarred and in jail.

 

[Nostra]

The protestors have a leader in their threats-Senator Chuckie Schumer. He threatened the SC last year. He should be disbarred and in jail.

Let's replay his blatant threats of violence against the Supreme Court.

Where is Merrick Garland?

 

[sealybobo]

No, there is no interpretation needed. The text of the statute is crystal clear.


Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

I'll bet you any money if Trump broke this law/rule you'd find some wiggle room.

 

[sealybobo]

The protestors have a leader in their threats-Senator Chuckie Schumer. He threatened the SC last year. He should be disbarred and in jail.

For being a patriot?

The Supreme's should be ashamed and embarrassed they got caught trying to slip this one by us. It would have been a lot easier had there been no leak. Thank God for the leaker huh? Sleazy ass judges, legislating from the bench. What's the opposite of Supreme?

 

[Nostra]

I'll bet you any money if Trump broke this law/rule you'd find some wiggle room.

Funny how you Dimtard morons can try to drag Trump into any thread you are getting your ass kicked in and think it will help.

 

[Nostra]

For being a patriot?

The Supreme's should be ashamed and embarrassed they got caught trying to slip this one by us. It would have been a lot easier had there been no leak. Thank God for the leaker huh? Sleazy ass judges, legislating from the bench. What's the opposite of Supreme?

How would they "slip this by us", you raving lunatic?

 

[miketx]

I'll bet you any money if Trump broke this law/rule you'd find some wiggle room.

 

[sealybobo]

How would they "slip this by us", you raving lunatic?

They tried. That's why they are mad we found out early. They certainly didn't want this to happen.

There has been outrage that protesters turned up outside the home of supreme court judges. But what is more shocking – peaceful demonstrations or forcing women to give birth?

Overturning Roe v Wade will destroy our civil rights â so donât ask us to be âcivilâ

There has been outrage that protesters turned up outside the home of supreme court judges. But what is more shocking – peaceful demonstrations or forcing women to give birth, writes Arwa Mahdawi

www.theguardian.com

While some people were upset that five out of nine unelected judges (two of whomhave been accused of sexual misconduct) have the power to take away women’s bodily autonomy, CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin (who reportedly exposed himself on Zoom) had a meltdown over the impropriety of the leak itself. “The idea that a decision of this magnitude could leak is really a shattering experience for the justices and the court,” he told viewers, breathlessly. “I really don’t know how or if the institution is going to recover.” Shattering for the justices? He doesn’t know if the institution is going to recover? Talk about missing the damn point.

Fuck the institution!!!

Naughty me: it seems I haven’t absorbed one of the big lessons of the past week. Which is this: when your civil rights are in danger, the most important thing you can do in response is Be Civil. If five unelected judges decide that you have no control over your uterus and no right to privacy, that’s just democracy in action, my friends. If, on the other hand, you decide you want to respond to the dismantling of your civil rights by protesting outside the houses of the judges responsible, then shame on you! How dare you violate these people’s privacy!

The Washington Post’s editorial board, for example, preached that everyoneshould “leave the justices alone at home”. Prominent conservatives, such as Bill Kristol, tweeted things such as: “Please don’t protest at people’s homes … Organize politically, be civil civically.” And the White House issued a statement about how judges must “be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety” that was interpreted by many as a condemnation of the protests.

It’s reasonable to argue that protests outside officials’ houses aren’t appropriate. What I object to is the cynical way in which “civility” is constantly weaponised, the way it has become a sneaky byword for “servility” – a way to tell people to shut up and accept the status quo. Arguments for “civility” certainly aren’t used with much consistency: many of the people clutching their pearls about the protests making judges’ personal lives “miserable” (as the Washington Post put it) don’t seem to be quite so bothered about how miserable it might be for a woman to be forced to give birth. And I don’t think there was much discussion of “civility” when, in 2014, the supreme court struck down a Massachusetts law that mandated a 35-foot buffer zone around clinics that provide abortion services. The court found that it was unconstitutional for protesters not to have to the right to get in the faces of vulnerable people who were just trying to access healthcare. If protesters want to protest in front of a judge’s house though? Uncivil!

 

[Nostra]

They tried. That's why they are mad we found out early. They certainly didn't want this to happen.

There has been outrage that protesters turned up outside the home of supreme court judges. But what is more shocking – peaceful demonstrations or forcing women to give birth?

Overturning Roe v Wade will destroy our civil rights â so donât ask us to be âcivilâ

There has been outrage that protesters turned up outside the home of supreme court judges. But what is more shocking – peaceful demonstrations or forcing women to give birth, writes Arwa Mahdawi

www.theguardian.com

While some people were upset that five out of nine unelected judges (two of whomhave been accused of sexual misconduct) have the power to take away women’s bodily autonomy, CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin (who reportedly exposed himself on Zoom) had a meltdown over the impropriety of the leak itself. “The idea that a decision of this magnitude could leak is really a shattering experience for the justices and the court,” he told viewers, breathlessly. “I really don’t know how or if the institution is going to recover.” Shattering for the justices? He doesn’t know if the institution is going to recover? Talk about missing the damn point.

Fuck the institution!!!

Naughty me: it seems I haven’t absorbed one of the big lessons of the past week. Which is this: when your civil rights are in danger, the most important thing you can do in response is Be Civil. If five unelected judges decide that you have no control over your uterus and no right to privacy, that’s just democracy in action, my friends. If, on the other hand, you decide you want to respond to the dismantling of your civil rights by protesting outside the houses of the judges responsible, then shame on you! How dare you violate these people’s privacy!

The Washington Post’s editorial board, for example, preached that everyoneshould “leave the justices alone at home”. Prominent conservatives, such as Bill Kristol, tweeted things such as: “Please don’t protest at people’s homes … Organize politically, be civil civically.” And the White House issued a statement about how judges must “be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety” that was interpreted by many as a condemnation of the protests.

It’s reasonable to argue that protests outside officials’ houses aren’t appropriate. What I object to is the cynical way in which “civility” is constantly weaponised, the way it has become a sneaky byword for “servility” – a way to tell people to shut up and accept the status quo. Arguments for “civility” certainly aren’t used with much consistency: many of the people clutching their pearls about the protests making judges’ personal lives “miserable” (as the Washington Post put it) don’t seem to be quite so bothered about how miserable it might be for a woman to be forced to give birth. And I don’t think there was much discussion of “civility” when, in 2014, the supreme court struck down a Massachusetts law that mandated a 35-foot buffer zone around clinics that provide abortion services. The court found that it was unconstitutional for protesters not to have to the right to get in the faces of vulnerable people who were just trying to access healthcare. If protesters want to protest in front of a judge’s house though? Uncivil!

How did they try to slip this by us? You do know they publicly release all their rulings, right?

You are a moron.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Guess administration of justice didn't apply when the Trumptards tried to overturn an election.

Democrats don't care about laws , just look how they stole the election . 2000 mules...

 

[sealybobo]

How would they "slip this by us", you raving lunatic?

When were they going to tell us about this? At some point in the future, when it's too late because they already made it the law of the land, they were going to pass this and just hit us with it one day out of the blue. IDK when they were going to "slip it by us" but it certainly wasn't the other day when someone leaked it.

IDK why this is a big deal. If they believe abortion is murder they should say it loud and proud. Not deny it at their confirmation hearings then "slip it by us" out of the blue like were a bunch of fucking idiots.

 

[sealybobo]

How did they try to slip this by us? You do know they publicly release all their rulings, right?

You are a moron.

Yea but they can "slip it by us" by announcing it on a Friday after they've already decided.

They certainly can't "slip it by us" now can they?

 

[Nostra]

When were they going to tell us about this? At some point in the future, when it's too late because they already made it the law of the land, they were going to pass this and just hit us with it one day out of the blue. IDK when they were going to "slip it by us" but it certainly wasn't the other day when someone leaked it.

IDK why this is a big deal. If they believe abortion is murder they should say it loud and proud. Not deny it at their confirmation hearings then "slip it by us" out of the blue like were a bunch of fucking idiots.

Once again, explain in detail how they would "slip this by us" when there is a scheduled time after they finish their sessions to release all of their rulings, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

Yea but they can "slip it by us" by announcing it on a Friday after they've already decided.

They certainly can't "slip it by us" now can they?

Are you planning on going into a permanent coma on Friday?

Also, can you cite a single SC ruling where they announced their ruling before making a decision? Do you ever read what you write to see how fucking stupid it is?

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats don't care about laws , just look how they stole the election . 2000 mules...

You're an idiot if you think we stole 5 states and Republicans governors helped us.

And then you don't believe Jeb Bush helped George win one lousy state? Why not? Why do you swallow the 2020 lie but don't believe 2000 was stolen? 2000 had rigged Diebold voting machines. Republicans threw out Democratic votes because of Hanging Chads. They developed a confusing butterfly ballot on purpose. And they started a riot in 2000 called the Brooks Brother Riots to stop the recount. So they used the riot tactic in 2000 and 2020. Very interesting.

But you think we stole 5 states. Do you know how impossible that would be? It'd be a lot easier for Jeb to steal his state for his brother.

Funny, you don't trust Hunter but you trust Jeb an Jared. You're a fucking retard ay?

 

[sealybobo]

Once again, explain in detail how they would "slip this by us" when there is a scheduled time after they finish their sessions to release all of their rulings, Dumbass.

You're an idiot. Fuck off. You know what I meant. You're being obtuse bitch. Go suck a big white dick ok?

 

[sealybobo]

Are you planning on going into a permanent coma on Friday?

Also, can you cite a single SC ruling where they announced their ruling before making a decision? Do you ever read what you write to see how fucking stupid it is?

Then what's the big deal about the leak? Can you explain that?

 

[Nostra]

You're an idiot. Fuck off. You know what I meant. You're being obtuse bitch. Go suck a big white dick ok?

Well then, explain how they would "slip it by us", in your own words.