2022 SCOTUS rulings

[UNI88]

Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.

They’re different but both are shitty.

Maybe BDK is right. "Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices" is an attack on the highest level of our judicial system, one of our three branches of government. It's kind of like the January 6 insurrection, an attack on the highest level of our legislative system, one of our three branches of government. "Giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen" is more of an attack on our system at a local level. It's kind of like the AnTiFa riots of 2020.

Cue BDK twisting himself into a logic pretzel explaining why protesting outside of a SCOTUS justice's house is a major problem but January 6 wasn't a big deal.

[UNI88]

‘Oh, God, no’: Republicans fear voter backlash after Indiana child rape case

“These are the kind of things that are going to breathe life into the Democrats’ hopes of maintaining some sort of coalition,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. “I don’t think this is the dominant issue as we’re going into November, but these kinds of unforced errors are lifelines for the Democrats.”
...
“Every day that we’re talking about anything but Biden’s cost of living is a wasted day politically,” said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican strategist. “You know, we’ve got a historic opportunity here this November, and let’s not blow it.”
...
For weeks, the widely held expectation among both Democratic and Republican political professionals had been that Roe would almost certainly not be enough to stop Republicans from gaining a majority in the House in November, but that it could limit their gains, scaring off moderates and suburban women.

Abortion still ranks below other issues — most of all, the economy — as a top priority of voters, and the electoral landscape is so bleak for Democrats this year that they are likely to sustain widespread losses regardless of fallout from Roe. By November, said Dave Carney, a national Republican strategist based in New Hampshire, “it’s not going to matter what Bopp or whatever … his name is says. It’s not going to trump 9.1 percent inflation.”

But abortion has been ticking up as a priority since the court’s ruling on Roe. And in close House races and statewide contests in swing states, even a shift at the margins may be consequential.

Sean Walsh, a Republican strategist who worked in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses, said the Indiana case will not only turn off moderate Republicans but will serve as a “motivator to get younger voters to vote — who usually are spotty in casting ballots.”

Sands appear to be shifting and the cost to Republicans rising.

[BDKJMU]

They’re different but both are shitty.

Maybe BDK is right. "Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices" is an attack on the highest level of our judicial system, one of our three branches of government. It's kind of like the January 6 insurrection, an attack on the highest level of our legislative system, one of our three branches of government. "Giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen" is more of an attack on our system at a local level. It's kind of like the AnTiFa riots of 2020.

Cue BDK twisting himself into a logic pretzel explaining why protesting outside of a SCOTUS justice's house is a major problem but January 6 wasn't a big deal.

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

[UNI88]

Maybe BDK is right. "Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices" is an attack on the highest level of our judicial system, one of our three branches of government. It's kind of like the January 6 insurrection, an attack on the highest level of our legislative system, one of our three branches of government. "Giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen" is more of an attack on our system at a local level. It's kind of like the AnTiFa riots of 2020.

Cue BDK twisting himself into a logic pretzel explaining why protesting outside of a SCOTUS justice's house is a major problem but January 6 wasn't a big deal.

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

[kalm]

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

They were just looking for beer…and porn.

[UNI88]

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

They were just looking for beer…and porn.

Good thing they weren't looking for ice cream. Nancy Pelosi has that stashed in her freezers.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

[kalm]

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

So arrest them for insurrection.

[Baldy]

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

So arrest them for insurrection.

That would only happen if Conks were protesting outside the homes of Donk justices.

[UNI88]

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

But they weren't trespassing so it's different.

But I actually agree with you, they should be arrested. We shouldn't be picking and choosing which laws to enforce and how to enforce them based on the ideology of the perpetrator any more then we should based on skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

I'm just using a nitpicking, obtuse approach similar to what you frequently use to argue that MAGAt behavior wasn't as bad.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[LeadBolt]

They weren’t trespassing, but there is a separate law that makes it illegal to protest at Justice’s homes to influence their decisions or to intimidate them. I believe that would apply in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Nothing says freedom caucus like states rights.

A group of Texas Republican legislators sent a letter to one of the biggest law firms in the U.S. threatening the company and its lawyers with disbarment and prosecution if they facilitate abortions, even outside of Texas, according to a report. The letter, which TMZ has obtained, says the 11 members of the Texas Freedom Caucus have become aware of Sidley Austin “reimbursing travel costs of employees who leave Texas to murder their unborn children.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-rep ... &fs=e&s=cl

[houndawg]

Maybe BDK is right. "Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices" is an attack on the highest level of our judicial system, one of our three branches of government. It's kind of like the January 6 insurrection, an attack on the highest level of our legislative system, one of our three branches of government. "Giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen" is more of an attack on our system at a local level. It's kind of like the AnTiFa riots of 2020.

Cue BDK twisting himself into a logic pretzel explaining why protesting outside of a SCOTUS justice's house is a major problem but January 6 wasn't a big deal.

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

They were just tour groups checking out the local real estate market.

[AZGrizFan]

Well, since people were arrested en masse for misdemeanor tresspass on 1/6, they sure as hell should have been arrested en masse at every SCOTUS house they protested at, which is a blatant violation of fed law.

They were just tour groups checking out the local real estate market.

The folks filing single file through the capitol building and snapping pictures looked a lot more like tour groups than the violent mobs descending upon SCOTUS houses.

[houndawg]

They were just tour groups checking out the local real estate market.

The folks filing single file through the capitol building and snapping pictures looked a lot more like tour groups than the violent mobs descending upon SCOTUS houses.

Did they break windows? Shit on the lawn? Chant "Hang Sam Alito?

[Baldy]

The folks filing single file through the capitol building and snapping pictures looked a lot more like tour groups than the violent mobs descending upon SCOTUS houses.

Did they break windows? Shit on the lawn? Chant "Hang Sam Alito?

One of them is in jail right now for attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice.
Does that count?

[houndawg]

Did they break windows? Shit on the lawn? Chant "Hang Sam Alito?

One of them is in jail right now for attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice.
Does that count?

typical overeaction....

Which justice?

[kalm]

Matt Gaetz continues to be a hell of a fundraiser for reproduction rights.

[houndawg]

I didn't realize they were protesting in the SCOTUS house(s). If they were then yes, they should be arrested en masse for misdemeanor trespass.

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

The street is public territory

[BDKJMU]

Don’t be obtuse. Protesting outside the SCOTUS homes was breaking the law just as much as most of those protesting inside the Capital.

The street is public territory

Irrelevant. It is a violation of federal law to protest outside of a fed judges residence, punishable by up to 1 year in prison. Doesn’t matter if the protestors are on the street, sidewalk, or lawn.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

[Skjellyfetti]

But, the Constitution just says the people have the right to peaceably assemble. There are no qualifications.

So, following a strict constructionist interpretation, the people have the right to peaceably protest outside of a fed judge's residence on public property and that law is unconstitutional.

[UNI88]

But, the Constitution just says the people have the right to peaceably assemble. There are no qualifications.

So, following a strict constructionist interpretation, the people have the right to peaceably protest outside of a fed judge's residence on public property and that law is unconstitutional.

Can they assemble without attempting to influence a judge?

[Skjellyfetti]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about influencing a judge. The Constitution says Congress can't make a law that prohibits the people from peaceably assembling. The law BDK cites outlaws peaceably assembling outside a federal judge's home. That is pretty clearly unconstitutional if you are a strict constructionist. No?
.

[UNI88]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about influencing a judge. The Constitution says Congress can't make a law that prohibits the people from peaceably assembling. The law BDK cites outlaws peaceably assembling outside a federal judge's home. That is pretty clearly unconstitutional if you are a strict constructionist. No?
.

So infringing upon the right to assemble to prevent attempts to influence judges would be kind of like infringing upon the right to bear arms to limit assault weapons?

[kalm]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about influencing a judge. The Constitution says Congress can't make a law that prohibits the people from peaceably assembling. The law BDK cites outlaws peaceably assembling outside a federal judge's home. That is pretty clearly unconstitutional if you are a strict constructionist. No?
.

So infringing upon the right to assemble to prevent attempts to influence judges would be kind of like infringing upon the right to bear arms to limit assault weapons?

If you’re a “strict constructionist” I would think so.