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

[Ralph Norton]

Wrong.......there is a law about protesting on the sidewalks in front of judges homes.......

Please reread the thread. I know there is such a law (18 USC 1507) and that is what I was arguing.

 

[BS Filter]

Absolutely. And?

And what?

 

[pknopp]

And what?

A Supreme Court Justice?

Per the law posted earlier.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.......there is a law about protesting on the sidewalks in front of judges homes.......

Doesn't that go against the notion of a first amendment.

We should use guns to keep our rights when an oppressive unconstitutional government rises up. Don't you agree with that?

No, actually, I don't.

But assuming I did, five justices are about to regulate millions of women to being unwilling breeding machines. If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

 

[marvin martian]

How is that any different than terrorists storming the Capitol?

Realistically, yeah, this Nicholas John Roske is a nut and he never should able to get a gun.

He's just the hit man. Chuck Schumer is the terrorist who made the threat and dispatched the shooter.

 

[pknopp]

Now you’re playing dumb. It's intimidating. We know where you live.

How is "protesting" not intimidating? Protest is a protected right.

 

[marvin martian]

But assuming I did, five justices are about to regulate millions of women to being unwilling breeding machines. If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

^^^This is what the left thinks of women: they're too dumb to avoid getting pregnant. Talk about oppressive...

 

[BS Filter]

Doesn't that go against the notion of a first amendment.


No, actually, I don't.

But assuming I did, five justices are about to regulate millions of women to being unwilling breeding machines. If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

Bullshit. Ever hear of birth control, abstinence, and the morning after pill?

 

[Ralph Norton]

There isn't. The law quoted stated one can not protest to "influence" a justice. I have to wonder whether that in itself would stand up to a challenge but all the same, one can protest to simply protest.

So I ask, this is not the first protest of the Supreme Court and it's justices (the law does NOT single out their house), why has no one ever been arrested?

Seriously? You are arguing that they are "protesting simply to protest? OF COURSE they are trying to influence.
As for the SC building itself, perhaps the protesters were far enough away that they were not deemed to be "near" the building.
I don't know and I don't care. The fact that a law isn't enforced doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And it SHOULD be enforced.

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't that go against the notion of a first amendment.


No, actually, I don't.

But assuming I did, five justices are about to regulate millions of women to being unwilling breeding machines. If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

Nope.......you can't threaten a judge...that goes against the 6th Amendment......

 

[pknopp]

Seriously? You are arguing that they are "protesting simply to protest? OF COURSE they are trying to influence.
As for the SC building itself, perhaps the protesters were far enough away that they were not deemed to be "near" the building.
I don't know and I don't care. The fact that a law isn't enforced doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And it SHOULD be enforced.

Why has no one ever been arrested? The law does NOT single out a home. It includes a wide range of places.

"I can not influence him, I was simply protesting his ruling".

Go ahead, prove otherwise.

 

[2aguy]

There isn't. The law quoted stated one can not protest to "influence" a justice. I have to wonder whether that in itself would stand up to a challenge but all the same, one can protest to simply protest.

So I ask, this is not the first protest of the Supreme Court and it's justices (the law does NOT single out their house), why has no one ever been arrested?

Because the government, again, fails to do what it is supposed to do and arrest those who try to intimidate or threaten a judge...

Another reason to keep our guns.

 

[pknopp]

Because the government, again, fails to do what it is supposed to do and arrest those who try to intimidate or threaten a judge...

Another reason to keep our guns.

Guns aren't kept to intimidate?

 

[2aguy]

Guns aren't kept to intimidate?

They are....so?

You don't have a point ......

 

[BS Filter]

Why has no one ever been arrested? The law does NOT single out a home. It includes a wide range of places.

"I can not influence him, I was simply protesting his ruling".

Go ahead, prove otherwise.

No one is arrested because democrats run Washington DC.

 

[BS Filter]

Guns aren't kept to intimidate?

Self defense.

 

[JoeB131]

He's just the hit man. Chuck Schumer is the terrorist who made the threat and dispatched the shooter.

Wow, get hysterical much?

^^^This is what the left thinks of women: they're too dumb to avoid getting pregnant. Talk about oppressive...

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

 

[Ralph Norton]

Why has no one ever been arrested? The law does NOT single out a home. It includes a wide range of places.

"I can not influence him, I was simply protesting his ruling".

Go ahead, prove otherwise.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope.......you can't threaten a judge...that goes against the 6th Amendment......

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?

 

[pknopp]

No one is arrested because democrats run Washington DC.

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