Video: Cruz yells at Garland for 9 minutes over DOJ not bringing cases against pro-abortion protesters at Kavanaugh's home(Hawley, Cornyn also erupt)

[westwall]

First amendment.

Doesn't say "shall not be infringed" as it does the 2nd.

Next.

 

[Marener]

Doesn't say "shall not be infringed" as it does the 2nd.

Next.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Seems like this law does exactly that.

 

[westwall]

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Seems like this law does exactly that.

Oh? So you agree that the COTUS means something (thanks for falling into the trap). Why then do you demand the end of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Couchpotato]

I love when Ted Cruz asks you a question and then interrupts and screams as you try to answer

Cruz gets to ask you a question, he does not get to define how you answer

To be fair Cruz asked him if the DOJ has brought a single case against any of the people protesting outside the SCOTUS Justices homes and Garland's answer was about how many US Marshals were at the scene.

 

[Marener]

Oh? So you agree that the COTUS means something (thanks for falling into the trap). Why then do you demand the end of the 2nd Amendment?

Where did I demand to end the 2nd amendment?

Don't deflect. You guys are showing you don't respect freedom of speech.

 

[WEATHER53]

.

It's not an issue of Privacy ... It is a violation of 18 USC 1507 ~ Picketing or Parading ...
To protest "in or near a building or residence" of a judge, juror, witness, or court official ...
And a felony that carries a fine, up to one year in prison, or both.

.​

Garland is like so many feelers.
He feels the law can be ignored when he feels the purpose of the illegality is “more noble than the law”

 

[LeftofLeft]

I love when Ted Cruz asks you a question and then interrupts and screams as you try to answer

Cruz gets to ask you a question, he does not get to define how you answer

You people love how your pro-abortion terrorists get a pass for threatening Supreme Court Justices from Garland while he is quick to arrest concerned parents at a school voice anger about books in the library from the Groomer Wing of your party detailing sexual relationships between grown men and young boys or protecting the boy in the tutu who raped a girl in the bathroom.

 

[WEATHER53]

The speech is not illegal but there is more to it.
Being at SC justice home is not speech. It’s an act. It is the act that is not legally permitted

 

[LeftofLeft]

So , no right to protest against unelected court decisions .

Threatening and doxxing are not acceptable forms of protest.

 

[Care4all]

Imagine how different these hearings would be without teevee cameras.

I know, right.

I hate the Republican holy roller dog and pony shows, such a waste of time...

 

[westwall]

Where did I demand to end the 2nd amendment?

Don't deflect. You guys are showing you don't respect freedom of speech.

Deflection is YOUR schtick. I merely asked you a question. All of you progressives want to eliminate the 2nd.

 

[BlackSand]

The speech is not illegal but there is more to it.
Being at SC justice home is not speech. It’s an act. It is the act that is not legally permitted

.

Correct:
The illegal part has to do with actions prior to the Supreme Court deciding the case ... Or any court and the parties listed for that matter.
It is illegal to attempt to persuade, influence or pressure court proceedings or officials ... Unless you are a court official and arguing a case in court.
This applies to any location or building they are in ... Including their residence.

It's not about Free Speech ... But about the reason they were speaking and what they were trying to accomplish.
The protest they were having would be completely acceptable ... And legal if it had been somewhere else ...

.​

 

[marvin martian]

Where did I demand to end the 2nd amendment?

Don't deflect. You guys are showing you don't respect freedom of speech.

It doesn't extend to political violence, like the terrorist who tried to kill Brett Kavanaugh. You people don't understand where the line is.

 

[WEATHER53]

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Seems like this law does exactly that.

Showing up at a private residence is an act and not speech
Vocalization is not illegal. Being there IS.

 

[easyt65]

Ted Cruz slams Garland for ignoring pro-abortion threats to Supreme Court justices and their families. "Why are you unwilling to say no? The answer is no! You know it's no. I know it's no. Everyone in this hearing room knows it's no! You're not willing to answer a question!"

Garland and his Gestapo go out of their way to conduct a heavily armed raid on a family, scaring the crap out of the kids, dragging daddy out IOT attempt to make a federal case out of one local authorities would not even make an arrest for, a case in which a catholic man prayed for women coming to an abortion clinic - a jury deliberated for about an hour when Garland brought the case to trial, finding the man innocent...

...meanwhile this partisan, Constitution / Rule of Law-violating criminal refused to do his job to protect USSC Justices and their families from violent leftist extremistd by enforcing laws meant to do just that...

Elected federal Democrats personaly threatened USSC Justices, called for violence against them, incited a (SECOND) political assassination attempt, and doxxed them- putting their lives so in danger that several Justices and their families had to be physically relocated because Garland refused to enforce the law, refused to remove these threats as the law required.

No Democrat or snowflake should EVER again bitch about Garland not being allowed to become a member of the USSC...because EVERY DAY he continually proves what a criminal, partisan, Constitution / Rule of Law ignoring / violating POS and threat to this nation he was / IS!

America dodged a proverbial bullet by him not getting on the USSC.

Instead of a vile partisan, Constitution / Law-violating, oath breaking criminal USSC Justice, we were lucky enough to get one whose only serious problem is that she doesn't know what a woman is.

 

[easyt65]

Well I have over here where we are free to protest where we choose. Why are you entitled to privacy at home ? Where does it say that ?

There are laws specifically intended to protect USSC Justices from violent protestors and leftist whackadoodles, laws Garland refused to enforce.

 

[Marener]

Showing up at a private residence is an act and not speech
Vocalization is not illegal. Being there IS.

SCOTUS disagreed with you, specifically when they said that a law that prevented protestors from being in front of an abortion clinic was unconstitutional.

 

[WEATHER53]

.

Correct:
The illegal part has to do with actions prior to the Supreme Court deciding the case ... Or any court and the parties listed for that matter.
It is illegal to attempt to persuade, influence or pressure court proceedings or officials ... Unless you are a court official and arguing a case in court.
This applies to any location or building they are in ... Including their residence.

It's not about Free Speech ... But about the reason they were speaking and what they were trying to accomplish.
The protest they were having would be completely acceptable ... And legal if it had been somewhere else ...

.​

And they can protest at the workplace where the work product came from.
They didn’t rule from their living room .

 

[BlackSand]

There are laws specifically intended to protect USSC Justices from violent protestors and leftist whackadoodles, laws Garland refused to enforce.

.

It's 18 USC 1507 ~Picketing and Parading ...
It applies to all judges, jurors, witnesses, or court officials ... And violence is not a requirement of the illegality.

.​

 

[Clipper]

Refused to answer direct yes/no questions.....Garland is fucking scum.

He did answer the questions but Trump's asseaters like Lyin Ted & Galloping Hawley didn't like the answers.