Biden & Garland Not Caring If A Conservative USSC Justice Is Kilked Makes Sense

[konradv]

They are breaking the law Shittingbull

Peacefully thus far, unlike 1/6.

 

[konradv]

Are you serious? You think random posts on the internet=news?

No, I said it was FAKE NEWS.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Peacefully thus far, unlike 1/6.

So if I peacefully steal your car we're all good right?

 

[konradv]

So if I peacefully steal your car we're all good right?

No, but that in no way compares to 1/6 and what’s happening now. Try again, your analogies lack insight.

 

[Rogue AI]

It's all good. Significant swings to liberal stupidity always lead to a societal backlash of epic proportions. The sheer volume of degeneracy and lawlessness will plunge liberal stupidity into an abyss that will last for decades.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

***FAKE NEWS***

When we get Nancy under oath, we'll get it confirmed

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No, but that in no way compares to 1/6 and what’s happening now. Try again, your analogies lack insight.

My analogies are SPOT ON.

Illegal is illegal, PERIOD

And your diversion to Jan 6th is IRRELEVANT to this thread

 

[Papageorgio]

But battering rams at the Capitol wasn’t intimidation?

1/6 was a riot and wrong but there is a law specifically applying to judges and intimidation. We cannot allow courts to be swayed by threats.

 

[Papageorgio]

***FAKE NEWS***

***FAKE NEWS***

 

[Papageorgio]

FAKE NEWS! No one is being held for life.

***FAKE NEWS***

 

[BlindBoo]

18 USC 1705 Prohibits the undue influencing of a Judge. this is a Federal first-degree felony crime and just like the border, Joe Biden is ADING AND ABETTING THE CRIMINAL ACT.

Garland is aiding this criminal act as well... He should resign..

Yet the 1st amendment prohibit Congress from......

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The marchers looked pretty peaceful to me. But, as the Democratic Senator from Hawaii said last night, if it is determined that any crime was committed, those guilty should be prosecuted.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yet the 1st amendment prohibit Congress from......

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The marchers looked pretty peaceful to me. But, as the Democratic Senator from Hawaii said last night, if it is determined that any crime was committed, those guilty should be prosecuted.

The issue is not whether they are peaceful or not. The issue is, are people protesting to coerce or intimidate the justices, if it is, it is then illegal. I have no issue with them protesting and the steps of the courthouse but to protest at ones home while family is there, that is intimidation, pretty simple to figure out.

 

[BlindBoo]

The issue is not whether they are peaceful or not. The issue is, are people protesting to coerce or intimidate the justices, if it is, it is then illegal. I have no issue with them protesting and the steps of the courthouse but to protest at ones home while family is there, that is intimidation, pretty simple to figure out.

The law that Congress established seems to make even peaceful assembles in front of Justices homes illegal. But the First Amendment clearly states that Congress can't do that.

It's the leakers fault. That is why we have (or had) established procedures that should have prevented the leaking of an upcoming decision. The decision would have come first and then the people would start freaking out.

 

[Papageorgio]

The law that Congress established seems to make even peaceful assembles in front of Justices homes illegal. But the First Amendment clearly states that Congress can't do that.

It's the leakers fault. That is why we have (or had) established procedures that should have prevented the leaking of an upcoming decision. The decision would have come first and then the people would start freaking out.

Then appeal the law. It has been upheld several times, so apparently you are wrong. As for the leaker, he needs to be arrested and charged for his crime.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then appeal the law. It has been upheld several times, so apparently you are wrong. As for the leaker, he needs to be arrested and charged for his crime.

But I agree that judges and juries should not be intimidated by threatening mobs while deliberating and deciding cases. But this is also the third branch of government, not a criminal or a civil court room doling out punishments and awards. I don't recall a case where a draft SC decision was leaked like this, but do tell! Perhaps they need to set up some free speech zones around the houses like they do for the Prez Campaigns?

If he actually committed a crime. I think who ever published the addresses is the most culpable in making this shit happen.

 

[Papageorgio]

But I agree that judges and juries should not be intimidated by threatening mobs while deliberating and deciding cases. But this is also the third branch of government, not a criminal or a civil court room doling out punishments and awards. I don't recall a case where a draft SC decision was leaked like this, but do tell! Perhaps they need to set up some free speech zones around the houses like they do for the Prez Campaigns?

If he actually committed a crime. I think who ever published the addresses is the most culpable in making this shit happen.

These justices rule on present legislation and many times we know the Supreme Court is ruling or soon ruling on many laws and the Constitution. I want the laws followed and not have people standing outside homes to threaten judges.

 

[BlindBoo]

These justices rule on present legislation and many times we know the Supreme Court is ruling or soon ruling on many laws and the Constitution. I want the laws followed and not have people standing outside homes to threaten judges.

We've never had a leak like that before and most times we don't know how the court has ruled until it is announced.

 

[Papageorgio]

We've never had a leak like that before and most times we don't know how the court has ruled until it is announced.

I realize all of that but are we not told when a case is going before the Supreme Court, before it is even presented to the court? So, you could know of an upcoming case and go picket outside the Supreme Court Justice's homes and protest, which could be a form of intimidation and could put weight on deciding a case. Picketing has been done before, that is why boundaries were put into place.

 

[BlindBoo]

I realize all of that but are we not told when a case is going before the Supreme Court, before it is even presented to the court? So, you could know of an upcoming case and go picket outside the Supreme Court Justice's homes and protest, which could be a form of intimidation and could put weight on deciding a case. Picketing has been done before, that is why boundaries were put into place.

They have protested outside the building but not the homes that I remember.

Protesting on the Supreme Court's Front Porch - Harvard Law Review

Some dressed as characters from The Handmaid’s Tale, the dystopian novel about a society in which women are valued only if their ovaries are...

blog.harvardlawreview.org

 

[TNHarley]

Didnt take long for this thread to de-rail