U.S. Marshals told not to arrest protesters outside justices’ homes, documents reveal

[Marener]

So they should go to their houses and protest? You okay with that?

If they did, you’d defend their right to do so.

 

[struth]

You're conflating different instances. That dude called the cops on himself. Ya'll just want to pretend every thing the Dems do is like the Jan 6th riot at the Capitol.

haha we’ve seen far worse…cities burnt, courts firebombed, murder, assaults, looting far worse

the attempted assassin was part of the long standing assault on the justices that the white house green lighted

 

[marvin martian]

You're conflating different instances. That dude called the cops on himself. Ya'll just want to pretend every thing the Dems do is like the Jan 6th riot at the Capitol.

 

[struth]

View attachment 770777

dembot love to forget about their summer of insurrection and terror.

 

[jknowgood]

If they did, you’d defend their right to do so.

I don't think going to their house is appropriate, they have families and a Supreme Court justices houses are off limits. Would you support, having protesters surround the justices houses if they were to be voting on reversing the roe vs wade decision just made?

 

[scruffy]

It is not illegal to protest. There was nothing to arrest people over for protesting. Look at how many places that had to pay out millions for arresting people while simply protesting.

Leftards don't "simply protest", you idiot.

They go after Supreme Court justices with weapons. They burn down their own neighborhoods. They STEAL millions of dollars in merchandise, causing local businesses to shut down and vacate. They KILL people, random people including little children.

Leftards are extremely dangerous.

 

[scruffy]

This is threatening and harassing. Standing on a sidewalk is not.

You haven’t grasped the difference.

You call this "standing on a sidewalk", leftard asswipe?

 

[scruffy]

Read a damn book before you start using phrases like banana republic, which has nothing to do with this.

You don’t support freedom of speech. You want people arrested for exercising their rights. That’s fascist.

No, it's authoritarian.

It has nothing to do with fascism, stupid leftard.

How the fuck did you people get so stupid?

Oh wait... CNN, Koz, DU, MS-LSD....

 

[scruffy]

No it isn't. They were protesting a ruling.

No, they were violating a federal law.

What "else" they were doing at the time, should be of no consequence to a dumbass fucktard like Garland.

 

[scruffy]

Just start locking up these Dem law breakers for 10 years. Let them work on a chain gain picking up trash along the highways. In short order we'll run out of lawless Dems to lock up.

Exactly.

The consequences are lacking.

BECAUSE of dumbass leftards like Garland.

 

[Marener]

No, it's authoritarian.

It has nothing to do with fascism, stupid leftard.

How the fuck did you people get so stupid?

Oh wait... CNN, Koz, DU, MS-LSD....

It’s authoritarian to NOT arrest people exercising speech.

Do you know how stupid you sound?

 

[Marener]

I don't think going to their house is appropriate, they have families and a Supreme Court justices houses are off limits. Would you support, having protesters surround the justices houses if they were to be voting on reversing the roe vs wade decision just made?

This isn’t about what you consider appropriate.

It’s what people have a right to do.

Free speech extends to people who say things you don’t like.

 

[jknowgood]

This isn’t about what you consider appropriate.

It’s what people have a right to do.

Free speech extends to people who say things you don’t like.

Bullshit, so if the Supreme Court justices were going to vote on doing away with the new decision on roe-v-wade. You would support protest in front of the houses of the judges that would overturn it? Yes or no? I vote no, but I'm not a political hack.

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 770777

Perfect example of how the moroonies like you are so easily fooled.

 

[Marener]

Bullshit, so if the Supreme Court justices were going to vote on doing away with the new decision on roe-v-wade. You would support protest in front of the houses of the judges that would overturn it? Yes or no? I vote no, but I'm not a political hack.

So you vote to limit our freedom of speech.

Cool.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

You mean like how parents treat school board members?

The school board members work for the parents dumb ass.

 

[Marener]

The school board members work for the parents dumb ass.

So that gives you a right to threaten and intimidate them?

Dumb ass.

 

[pknopp]

The ruling hadnt happened yet.

There is no exemptions as such in the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

It's not illegal to protest, but if 100 people gather outside someone's personal home is that still just a protest?

It was when it was done to Rahm Emmanuel.

What about the terror inflicted on other people inside the home?

Protest isn't designed to make people feel good about themselves.

What about the disturbance to other people in the neighborhood? What happens if someone in the home tries to leave or someone residing there arrives home? What if there is an emergency for anyone in the neighborhood and the streets are blocked? Frequently, when people not involved have tried to pass through a protesting crowd they've been met with a violent reaction.

What if...........................LOL

As has been decided in many court cases our rights are not always absolute, like the Second Amendment, for instance. What are the limits to a protest? Do you think there should be any at all?

For simply protesting? None. I also do not believe in restrictions to the 2nd.

 

[jknowgood]

So you vote to limit our freedom of speech.

Cool.

Yes or no, you support protestors, surrounding liberal Supreme Court justices houses if they try to overturn. The newest Court decision?