NBC: Only 45% of Americans Believe 6 Jan Is Trump's Fault

[yidnar]

it appears the left is ok with threats of violence against SCJs ! even after the incident where an armed leftist showed up at Kavanaugh's home with the intent of harming him ! the left has no problem with violent threats to coerce the Court into ruling in their favor ! why else would they block additional security for Justices ?

House Democrats BLOCK bid to give Supreme Court justices more security

Nancy Pelosi defended her decision not to bring a bill for a vote that would provide more security for Supreme Court Justices until next week by saying Thursday that 'no one is in danger over the weekend.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[pknopp]

If Garland ever grows the balls to prosecute these assholes, let them go ahead and try to claim "I can not influence him, I was simply protesting his ruling".
You actually think another JUDGE would buy that s**t? Good luck with that.

Yes, absolutely. You can not charge someone for something you think they might think.

 

[BS Filter]

Wow, get hysterical much?


45% of pregnancies are unplanned.

Preventing unplanned pregnancy: Lessons from the states | Brookings

Isabel Sawhill and Katie Guyot review what we have learned about strategies for reducing unplanned pregnancies and births, especially at the state level.

www.brookings.edu

Imagine if a republican said what Schumer said. If 45% of pregnancies are unplanned, then Planned Parenthood should offer more classes.

 

[JoeB131]

Already a thread on this.

 

[BS Filter]

Rinse, repeat. No has ever been arrested over something like this. Not under Biden, or Trump or Obama or Bush or................................

No one has protested at a Supreme Court Justices home.

 

[pknopp]

No one has protested at a Supreme Court Justices home.

So what? There is no restrictions on our right to protest. People have protested outside of the homes of politicians before.

You can threaten them with guns but you can't peacefully protest?

 

[Ralph Norton]

Yes, absolutely. You can not charge someone for something you think they might think.

State of mind can be inferred by actions.
And by the way, since no ruling re Roe v. Wade has been made yet, what the hell are they doing there if not trying to influence? By your (questionable) logic they are "simply protesting" something that hasn't occurred yet.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Already a thread on this.

Go hide under a rock Hall Monitor

 

[2aguy]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

NOpe, nothing in there about threatening judges.

Hey, remember when Conservatives hated overreaching judges?

Moron, if you threaten a judge to get your way, you are denying a speedy and impartial jury, since the judge is in charge.....the judge is the referee....and decides those issues....

 

[BS Filter]

So what? There is no restrictions on our right to protest. People have protested outside of the homes of politicians before.

You can threaten them with guns but you can't peacefully protest?

Supreme Court Justices aren't politicians and it's against the law. Unbelievable.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Obviously the supreme court justices don't make enough to live in a truly gated community and can't receive all that lobbyist corruption money that our representatives in the executive and legislative branches do.

Time to make accepting lobbyist money, including through some non-profit organization or foundation, a federal crime with some serious punishment.

*****SMILE*****

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The left is against protection for the justices because that is only a step in the direction they are moving the country. Threats against jurors and witnesses are the goal. Of course protesting at the homes of jurors and witnesses is illegal. So is protesting at the homes of judges and justices.

 

[pknopp]

State of mind can be inferred by actions.
And by the way, since no ruling re Roe v. Wade has been made yet, what the hell are they doing there if not trying to influence? By your (questionable) logic they are "simply protesting" something that hasn't occurred yet.

According to the reports the ruling has been made, just not released but as I've said over and over and over and over, any Supreme Court protest could be deemed as trying to "influence" but no one is ever arrested.

Are you going to tell me this isn't an attempt to "influence"?

https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2022/05/gun_ban_decision_08-767x633-1.jpg

 

[MarathonMike]

it appears the left is ok with threats of violence against SCJs ! even after the incident where an armed leftist showed up at Kavanaugh's home with the intent of harming him ! the left has no problem with violent threats to coerce the Court into ruling in their favor ! why else would they block additional security for Justices ?

House Democrats BLOCK bid to give Supreme Court justices more security

Nancy Pelosi defended her decision not to bring a bill for a vote that would provide more security for Supreme Court Justices until next week by saying Thursday that 'no one is in danger over the weekend.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

I remember years ago Janet Napolitano came to Greer Arizona for a "retreat". Apparently scared for her safety, she brought 80 secret service and security with her. EIGHTY!!!!

 

[Meathead]

it appears the left is ok with threats of violence against SCJs ! even after the incident where an armed leftist showed up at Kavanaugh's home with the intent of harming him ! the left has no problem with violent threats to coerce the Court into ruling in their favor ! why else would they block additional security for Justices ?

House Democrats BLOCK bid to give Supreme Court justices more security

Nancy Pelosi defended her decision not to bring a bill for a vote that would provide more security for Supreme Court Justices until next week by saying Thursday that 'no one is in danger over the weekend.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Makes sense. The Dems would be delighted if 2 of a selected 5 had an "unfortunate indecent, but they'll have to hurry ... I mean whoever perpetrates this would have to hurry.

 

[BS Filter]

Legal demonstration in front of the Supreme Court. This is very simple. It is illegal to demonstrate at the home of a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine if a republican said what Schumer said. If 45% of pregnancies are unplanned, then Planned Parenthood should offer more classes.

I'm good with that... let's fund them properly and they will..

Moron, if you threaten a judge to get your way, you are denying a speedy and impartial jury, since the judge is in charge.....the judge is the referee....and decides those issues....

Where does it specifically say that in the Sixth Amendment...

In fact, there are no mentions of judges at all in that Amendment.

Again, you guys are the ones who claim you need your guns to fight the government... That's why crazy people like Roske should be allowed to buy guns with no background checks, no delays, licenses or insurance. Because freedom or something.

Washington was a gun-free zone until SCOTUS decided the militia amendment was an unfettered right to own a gun. A justice getting shot would almost seem like Karma.

 

[pknopp]

Legal demonstration in front of the Supreme Court. This is very simple. It is illegal to demonstrate at the home of a Supreme Court Justice.

There is no such law that states that.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm good with that... let's fund them properly and they will..



Where does it specifically say that in the Sixth Amendment...

In fact, there are no mentions of judges at all in that Amendment.

Again, you guys are the ones who claim you need your guns to fight the government... That's why crazy people like Roske should be allowed to buy guns with no background checks, no delays, licenses or insurance. Because freedom or something.

Washington was a gun-free zone until SCOTUS decided the militia amendment was an unfettered right to own a gun. A justice getting shot would almost seem like Karma.

Go ahead and donate to PP. No one is stopping you.

 

[BS Filter]

There is no such law that states that.

Yes, there is. Federal law. You know that.