SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I understand the legality of it, I was more referring to how I consider it harassment to be protesting in front of someone's home. Protest at the SCOTUS building. 

Abortion doctors have have protests in front of their houses for decades.

people also kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics.  If that’s not harassment they you can’t say it’s harassment of a Supreme Court justice who also haven’t historically seen themselves or their place of work the target of violence.  You could argue Supreme Court protests are simply protests. Protesting an abortion doctor has a real possibility of violence. Historically 

right or wrong as to if they should or shouldn’t to me is a valid concern . I’m just pointing out a clear double standard that exists 

yeah, I would think it obvious that if I think a protest in front of someone's home is harassment that I also disagree with the treatment of abortion doctors and clinics. 

I would agree with that. And I’ve heard it violates the law by intimidating a judge. It’s like protesting in front a witness’ house to intimidate the witness, can’t do it. I’m not familiar enough with that law to form a strong opinion, but it provides an interesting angle.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I understand the legality of it, I was more referring to how I consider it harassment to be protesting in front of someone's home. Protest at the SCOTUS building. 

Abortion doctors have have protests in front of their houses for decades.

people also kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics.  If that’s not harassment they you can’t say it’s harassment of a Supreme Court justice who also haven’t historically seen themselves or their place of work the target of violence.  You could argue Supreme Court protests are simply protests. Protesting an abortion doctor has a real possibility of violence. Historically 

right or wrong as to if they should or shouldn’t to me is a valid concern . I’m just pointing out a clear double standard that exists 

yeah, I would think it obvious that if I think a protest in front of someone's home is harassment that I also disagree with the treatment of abortion doctors and clinics. 

I would agree with that. And I’ve heard it violates the law by intimidating a judge. It’s like protesting in front a witness’ house to intimidate the witness, can’t do it. I’m not familiar enough with that law to form a strong opinion, but it provides an interesting angle.

Because holding a moment of silence is all of those things. How many courthouses have been the scenes of this “intimidation” or “interference” or “influence” of a judge and their official business/duties and how many protesters have been arrested? How many witnesses have had protesters protest outside their house?

mickeyrat

How the Alito ‘rumor’ spread  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/09/alito-rumor-undisclosed-location/ 

How the Alito ‘rumor’ spread
By Aaron Blake
May 09, 2022 at 18:01 ET
It has become a nugget embedded in the many reports and social media posts expressing outrage about protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes in support of Roe v. Wade: the idea that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was forced to vacate his residence for an “undisclosed location” out of fear for his safety.
The only problem is that it doesn’t seem to be based on anything. It could turn out to be true that Alito and his family left their home — but various people spread the rumor without any actual reports substantiating it. And it provides a great case study in how a rumor gets laundered into supposed fact, making it all the way into the Twitter feeds of multiple U.S. senators.
Politico did some digging into the story, tracing it back to last week — but even then, it doesn’t appear to have been anything more than a rumor. Their report links it to a pair of interviews Thursday and Saturday by Georgetown University lecturer Ilya Shapiro. Appearing on a D.C. area radio program, Shapiro said he had “heard a rumor that Justice Alito and his family have been taken to an undisclosed location.” He followed that up on Fox News two days later by saying, “I’ve heard that Justice Alito has been taken to an undisclosed location with his family.”
But Shapiro told Politico he couldn’t remember where he heard the rumor.
“I don’t have any nonpublic sources,” he said. “I forget whether I saw the rumor on Twitter or somebody told me. I don’t know.”
Later Monday, Shapiro retweeted a Reuters reporter who described the rumor as “a viral tweet that made the claim but unclear how that was sourced if at all.” He also told the Washington Examiner, “It was a rumor, and I never claimed it was anything other than a rumor.”
Alito canceled plans to attend a conference in Nashville last week, but in his prerecorded remarks did not discuss why (or his location). The Supreme Court has not said whether there might be any validity to the rumor, but that’s very much in keeping with its policies of not commenting on security matters.
Certainly, sharing unsubstantiated claims on a platform such as Fox News isn’t a great idea, but at least it was couched as a rumor and as hearsay. Others went on to apply significantly less caution.
The same day as the Fox News interview, Breitbart ran with the headline, “Justice Samuel Alito Moved to Undisclosed Location.” The piece, written by a former Trump administration official, briefly cited “reports around D.C.” but didn’t detail those reports or where they came from. The post has since been updated to add a “REPORTS” caveat to the headline and now says “rumors around D.C.” instead of “reports around D.C.” It also added links to Shapiro’s interviews. (The changes aren’t explained.)

continues.....

 

bootlegger10

I think I would want to go to an undisclosed location if my home was surrounded by angry people.  

We knew Congress and the POTUS were heavily politicized.  The SCOTUS was supposed to save us from ourselves and the politicians.   

It is sad to see the SCOTUS fall prey to either politicization (as some see it) or undue influence from protesters that could subvert due process and the rule of law for mob rule (as others see it).

mickeyrat

cool beans. Alito, this should be your next target....

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

We were discussing protests in front of SCOTUS residences and you conveniently threw in an attack on an anti-abortion headquarters and referred to “they” as if they’re one and the same or that you know who “they” are. Disingenuous.

Its probably ANTIIIIIIIIIIIFA or BLM in front of the SCOTUS residences and who attacked the anti-abortion headquarters. After all, they attacked our Capitol. No telling how far they’ll go.

Halifax2TheMax

Yea, sure, men don’t want to control women’s bodies. From Letter from an American.

Journalists for Business Insider ran the numbers and found that 84% of the state lawmakers who have sponsored trigger laws are men, five states had no women sponsors for trigger laws, all but one of the 13 governors who have signed trigger laws are men, and 91% of the senators who confirmed the antiabortion majority on the Supreme Court are men. These men are overwhelmingly Republican: 86% of the trigger law sponsors were Republican, all of the antiabortion justices were nominated by Republicans, and 94% of the senators who voted to confirm the antiabortion justices were Republicans. 

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

We were discussing protests in front of SCOTUS residences and you conveniently threw in an attack on an anti-abortion headquarters and referred to “they” as if they’re one and the same or that you know who “they” are. Disingenuous.

Its probably ANTIIIIIIIIIIIFA or BLM in front of the SCOTUS residences and who attacked the anti-abortion headquarters. After all, they attacked our Capitol. No telling how far they’ll go.

You then added a hypothetical and stated that the right wouldn’t be peaceful if 2A was taken away. I was unaware of the limitations for your hypothetical situation that doesn’t exist could not include other elements of facts related to the protest that is currently going on.
Are you really suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job put on by the right? You can make that leap but take issue with pointing out the violence that’s going in?

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

We were discussing protests in front of SCOTUS residences and you conveniently threw in an attack on an anti-abortion headquarters and referred to “they” as if they’re one and the same or that you know who “they” are. Disingenuous.

Its probably ANTIIIIIIIIIIIFA or BLM in front of the SCOTUS residences and who attacked the anti-abortion headquarters. After all, they attacked our Capitol. No telling how far they’ll go.

You then added a hypothetical and stated that the right wouldn’t be peaceful if 2A was taken away. I was unaware of the limitations for your hypothetical situation that doesn’t exist could not include other elements of facts related to the protest that is currently going on.
Are you really suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job put on by the right? You can make that leap but take issue with pointing out the violence that’s going in?

Wrong. I asked a question of HFC. I’m not suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job at all although you’re suggesting that I am. You’re claiming the protesters outside of SCOTUS residences are the same protesters who are mad about a leak and firebombed the headquarters. Everything I have read and seen reporting on the SCOTUS protesters is that they have been peaceful and in fact, were started by a woman neighbor with a placard asking others to join her.

Where do you get your information, seeing how you’ve claimed not to watch Faux News? What you’ve stated, and the leap you’ve made, is an OAN/Faux/conspiracy theory leap. It’s why I’m asking.

 And I’ll ask you the same yes or no question I asked HFC, if it were liberal SCOTUS’s with a leaked 2A decision, I’m assuming against gun rights, do you think the gun nuts would show up at SCOTUS residences and peacefully protest, yes or no?

Halifax2TheMax

And the right owns, lock stock and barrel, the violence as it relates to the anti-abortion fanaticism of the past 50 years.

Halifax2TheMax

And poor Susan Dupe Collins having a chalk message written on her sidewalk outside her home, poor thing. The horror.

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Nope. I can look at each event and decide what level of outrage, if any, is required for each. I don't need to compare to decide. 

How am I falling for something when I'm of the same opinion on this matter as I would have been 20 years ago?

Frankly, I'm not outraged at the protests at the homes. I merely stated that I didn't think it was appropriate. It makes me mildly uncomfortable, if you will. Now, showing up at a ledge with ar-15's in tow? yeah, that's quite concerning. that's another level of intimidation unto itself. 

Your slippery slope concern isn't valid. They can protest wherever they want. I just have a line, and that line is personal residences. It's a lower level of intimidation that has the potential for escalation. When you involve a person's residence, you are potentially involving people that have no business being involved; the justices' children, families, staff, friends, what have you. That's my issue. 

Because I don’t recall your “outrage”, your term not mine, at any other manner of protest, whether it was God hates fags at military funerals, the daily clinic protests and “intimidation” that occurs, the shouting down of school committee meetings and candidate forums or armed protesters occupying state houses. But peaceful protest outside a SCOTUS residence, or in mrussel’s case, any residence, crosses a line. Okay, weird.

Doesn’t any protest have the potential to involve people that have no business being involved or to attract “nut cases?”

And no, “they” cannot protest anywhere they want. Or do you mean like on interstate highways during rush hour?

not every thought I have ever had is put in print here on this website.

weird, I know. 

You sure?

care to expand on this?

Lerxst1992

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

We were discussing protests in front of SCOTUS residences and you conveniently threw in an attack on an anti-abortion headquarters and referred to “they” as if they’re one and the same or that you know who “they” are. Disingenuous.

Its probably ANTIIIIIIIIIIIFA or BLM in front of the SCOTUS residences and who attacked the anti-abortion headquarters. After all, they attacked our Capitol. No telling how far they’ll go.

You then added a hypothetical and stated that the right wouldn’t be peaceful if 2A was taken away. I was unaware of the limitations for your hypothetical situation that doesn’t exist could not include other elements of facts related to the protest that is currently going on.
Are you really suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job put on by the right? You can make that leap but take issue with pointing out the violence that’s going in?

To say 2A would be “taken away” - (which may have been framed as a reply to H2) please allow me to challenge you to first interpret the first thirteen words of 2A before you consider that 2A statement as truth. Once you are able to do the undoable (IMO), I challenge you that SCOTUS 2A interpretation is nothing more than political activism, as is the leaked Roe overturn.

Which gets me to why your point as well as Hugh’s, is so dangerously wrong. We don’t get a vote for the Justices, we havent had a say in how many Judges get to serve on the Court in 150+ years, we don’t get a say in how long their terms are, the Senate has taken away the POTUS power to appoint judges, (three of these points are not even in the constitution), and since the power is now in the senate, about 35% of America decides who controls the Court…and now stare decisis is irrelevant??

Now you and our Winnepegonian (?) fan want to take away our right to peacefully protest on publicly funded streets, to nine judges who have zero accountability to the public?

These judges decided to take their personal political activism to the Court and rammed down our throats, with zero accountability for liberty and a womens choice of privacy. Yet they deserve privacy? The founders tried to set up a system in the hope that political activism would not happen, that the court would not be overrun by political activism, but since they failed at that, publicly protesting this outrageous attack on womens liberty is something they need to deal with until they realize they need to move to an elitist privately gated community, and they’ll need to spend their time in hiding from the public.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think your home is off limits. shame them in public or at work or whatever....fine. But your home? big fat NOPE. 

i respectfully disagree. they are purposely inflicting pain on women. they live in affluent neighborhoods. they can either make due and deal with some people voicing their anger at home, or they can go stay in a hotel for a week. in my opinion, dealing with some people out in front of their house is a tiny, tiny price to pay for making women carry the child of their their rapist. having a few hundred people in front of their house pales in comparison to the lifelong pain inflicted on those women.

I find it odd that as soon as someone is rich they should be subject to harassment because they can "afford to deal with it". that to me is a very odd take.  

going down the road where a judge feels intimidated to make a ruling/not make a ruling is a very dangerous path. 

if republicans were harassing liberal judges about to make a ruling on 2A, I feel like you and Halifax would have a VERY different opinion on this. 

Do you think the right would show up to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech?Are you trying to same-same this? 

Well, they did fire bomb a non-profit pro-life counseling center and threaten everyone that works there.

Who are “they?” And for the record, they should be found, arrested, prosecuted and if found guilty, face the full punishment of the law. Are you claiming the SCOTUS protestors firebombed the anti-abortion headquarters? Or just making a false equivalency?

Whoever it was has mad penmanship with a spray can of paint, yo!

We don’t know who “they” are yet, but safe to assume some form of protestors who are angry about the leak.
You implied that the right wouldn’t be peacefully protesting if 2A was facing the same in defense to just protesting on a sidewalk in front of a judge’s house. I’m just pointing out these protests haven’t all been peaceful. 

We were discussing protests in front of SCOTUS residences and you conveniently threw in an attack on an anti-abortion headquarters and referred to “they” as if they’re one and the same or that you know who “they” are. Disingenuous.

Its probably ANTIIIIIIIIIIIFA or BLM in front of the SCOTUS residences and who attacked the anti-abortion headquarters. After all, they attacked our Capitol. No telling how far they’ll go.

You then added a hypothetical and stated that the right wouldn’t be peaceful if 2A was taken away. I was unaware of the limitations for your hypothetical situation that doesn’t exist could not include other elements of facts related to the protest that is currently going on.
Are you really suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job put on by the right? You can make that leap but take issue with pointing out the violence that’s going in?

Wrong. I asked a question of HFC. I’m not suggesting the fire bombing was a frame job at all although you’re suggesting that I am. You’re claiming the protesters outside of SCOTUS residences are the same protesters who are mad about a leak and firebombed the headquarters. Everything I have read and seen reporting on the SCOTUS protesters is that they have been peaceful and in fact, were started by a woman neighbor with a placard asking others to join her.

Where do you get your information, seeing how you’ve claimed not to watch Faux News? What you’ve stated, and the leap you’ve made, is an OAN/Faux/conspiracy theory leap. It’s why I’m asking.

 And I’ll ask you the same yes or no question I asked HFC, if it were liberal SCOTUS’s with a leaked 2A decision, I’m assuming against gun rights, do you think the gun nuts would show up at SCOTUS residences and peacefully protest, yes or no?

I thought you were implying it was a frame job when you added “they attacked the Capitol, no telling how far they’ll go.” If that’s not what you meant, then I misread it.

I didn’t mean literally the same protestors in both places, but that they are protesting the same cause. You don’t need to watch Fox News to conclude someone fire bombing a pro life counseling clinic and writing “if abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either” were people from the pro choice crowd upset about what was in the leak.

To answer your question, no I don’t think there would be violence against the justices if 2A was possibly being removed. I think both sides are smart enough to understand violence against a Justice will certainly be caught and land you a very long time in prison. Violence may take other forms, but I doubt directly against a Justice.

mickeyrat

right to life eh?

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-united-states-executions-phoenix-state-university-978013320623b716eba4ab15ddbb7b2a

 

U.S. Supreme Court Florence Arizona State University Arizona Executions

Prisoner put to death in Arizona’s 1st execution since 2014

1 hour ago

FLORENCE, Ariz. (AP) — An Arizona man convicted of killing a college student in 1978 was put to death Wednesday after a nearly eight-year hiatus in the state’s use of the death penalty brought on by an execution that critics say was botched — and the difficulty state officials faced in finding lethal injection drugs.

Clarence Dixon, 66, died by lethal injection at the state prison in Florence for his murder conviction in the killing of 21-year-old Arizona State University student Deana Bowdoin, making him the sixth person to be executed in the U.S. in 2022. Dixon’s death was announced late Wednesday morning by Frank Strada, a deputy director with Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry.

Dixon's death appeared to go smoothly, said Troy Hayden, an anchor for the Fox10 TV news program who witnessed the execution.

“Once the drugs started flowing, he went to sleep almost immediately,” Hayden said.

In the final weeks of his life, Dixon’s lawyers made last-minute arguments to the courts to postpone his execution, but judges rejected his argument that he isn’t mentally fit to be executed and didn’t have a rational understanding of why the state wanted to execute him. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-minute delay of Dixon’s execution less than an hour before his execution began.

---

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Pritzker calls for federal law, protests to protect abortion

Senate vote to support Roe v. Wade expected to fall short

For Supreme Court justices, secrecy is part of the job

Democrats' bill would make Roe v. Wade law and expand it

Dixon had declined the option of being killed in the gas chamber — a method that hasn’t been used in the U.S. in more than two decades — after Arizona refurbished its gas chamber in late 2020. Instead, he was executed with an injection of pentobarbital.

Strada said Dixon’s last statement was: “The Arizona Supreme Court should follow the laws. They denied my appeals and petitions to change the outcome of this trial. I do and will always proclaim innocence. Now, let’s do this (expletive)."

The last time Arizona executed a prisoner was in July 2014, when Joseph Wood was given 15 doses of a two-drug combination over two hours in an execution that his lawyers said was botched. Wood snorted repeatedly and gasped more than 600 times before he died.

States including Arizona have struggled to buy execution drugs in recent years after U.S. and European pharmaceutical companies began blocking the use of their products in lethal injections.

Authorities have said Bowdoin, who was found dead in her apartment in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe, had been raped, stabbed and strangled with a belt.

Dixon, who was an ASU student at the time and lived across the street from Bowdoin, had been charged with raping Bowdoin, but the rape charge was later dropped on statute-of-limitation grounds. He was convicted of murder in her killing.

In arguing that Dixon was mentally unfit, his lawyers said he erroneously believed he would be executed because police at Northern Arizona University wrongfully arrested him in another case — a 1985 attack on a 21-year-old student. His attorneys conceded he was lawfully arrested by Flagstaff police.

Dixon was sentenced to life in prison in that case for sexual assault and other convictions. DNA samples taken while he was in prison later linked him to Bowdoin’s killing, which had been unsolved.

Prosecutors said there was nothing about Dixon’s beliefs that prevented him from understanding the reason for the execution and pointed to court filings that Dixon himself made over the years.

Defense lawyers said Dixon was repeatedly diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, regularly experienced hallucinations over the past 30 years and was found “not guilty by reason of insanity” in a 1977 assault case in which the verdict was delivered by then-Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, nearly four years before her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bowdoin was killed two days after that verdict, according to court records.

Another Arizona death-row prisoner, Frank Atwood, is scheduled to be executed on June 8 in the killing of 8-year-old Vicki Lynne Hoskinson in 1984. Authorities have said Atwood kidnapped the girl.

The child’s remains was discovered in the desert northwest of Tucson nearly seven months after her disappearance. Experts could not determine the cause of death from the bones that were found, according to court records.

Arizona has 112 prisoners on death row.

dankind

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hey everybody, don’t speak up or out until your rights are really taken away. In fact, just wait until it’s happened and you have something to bitch about, okay?

Following a similar ordinance out of New Hampshire to shield its governor (R) from angry protestors outside his home, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's (D) administration also limited the right to peacefully protest outside her home. Protesters are fined.

So there are a few cases in different municipalities that could possibly be used to clear the sidewalks in front of the Supreme Court justices' homes.

As I've shared, I live a few houses down from the governor of Massachusetts (R), and protests outside his residence from people who don't even live here really made a shitty place to live even shittier. Out of sheer cowardice, the town hid behind 1A to continue to allow the disturbances. These had crossed the line from peaceful protests to the detriment of our community's public health and public education. These were easy legal arguments that could have gotten these people the hell out of my town, according to every attorney I know, one being a US attorney, but the town sat on its hands. I'm still suffering from PTSD, and they've been dormant for a while since some of them are awaiting trial/sentencing for 1/6 offenses.

HughFreakingDillon

dankind said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hey everybody, don’t speak up or out until your rights are really taken away. In fact, just wait until it’s happened and you have something to bitch about, okay?

Following a similar ordinance out of New Hampshire to shield its governor (R) from angry protestors outside his home, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's (D) administration also limited the right to peacefully protest outside her home. Protesters are fined.

So there are a few cases in different municipalities that could possibly be used to clear the sidewalks in front of the Supreme Court justices' homes.

As I've shared, I live a few houses down from the governor of Massachusetts (R), and protests outside his residence from people who don't even live here really made a shitty place to live even shittier. Out of sheer cowardice, the town hid behind 1A to continue to allow the disturbances. These had crossed the line from peaceful protests to the detriment of our community's public health and public education. These were easy legal arguments that could have gotten these people the hell out of my town, according to every attorney I know, one being a US attorney, but the town sat on its hands. I'm still suffering from PTSD, and they've been dormant for a while since some of them are awaiting trial/sentencing for 1/6 offenses.

just move into a hotel until it blows over. /s