WATCH: Dangerous Scene as Pro-Abortion 'Protesters' Gather at Justices' Homes, Attempt to Pressure T

The Right to PEACEFULLY (and I do stress "peacefully") assemble has been guaranteed by these very Justices numerous times ... it should
not surprise them that their decision would be met with protests.

 

What do you care, Aussie boy?

Even peaceful protests at PEOPLE'S HOMES are extremely rude and inappropriate, and might very well be illegal. Not because of any free speech issues, but because it's illegal to occupy a public road for such things without having the necessary permits, it's trespassing to set foot on the (in this case) Justice's property, and their neighbors without permission, as well. And if the roads are private in a gated community, their very presence there may be trespassing, too.

Protest all you like but do it on the Supreme Court grounds, in the National Mall, at the White House, or any of thousands of other appropriate places. A personal residence is NOT one of those places.

It's obnoxious and inappropriate. And VERY unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

I was countering apexofpurple's claim in reference to the insurrection of 1/6/21:

 

Does someone have to go through the entire list of incidents where anti-abortions activities have done exactly the same thing outside the offices and homes of people involved in the providing abortion services. And then beyond that the list crimes (up to and including murder) that have been committed in the name of that cause? For that matter anti-abortion activists were caught on camera recently protesting outside the Supreme Court!

Your literally arguing that the side one side in this debate (the side you support) is allowed to protest wherever it wants in whatever manner it wants but your opponents are not? Interesting take on freedom of speech. My opinion must be heard any who disagrees must remain silent?

 

'He' is she. At least try to get the basics right.

 

Dude. Lol.

Flat out lying about the article. That doesn't look good on you. Did you think I wouldn't go check?

“More than three quarters of agencies (78%) discovered persons that seemed to self-identify with far left ideologies, and more than half (51%) discovered persons that seemed to identify with violent far-right ideologies,” the report says.


Why did you intentionally leave that little tid-bit out?

The left trying to distance themselves from the looting and riots is one thing, flat out lying about it being "far right wing extemists" is just partisan lying.

 

It's unbelievable how these lefties will just outright reinvent history to serve their agenda.

 

Thats NOT what they said.

 

That wasn't the point I was making, was it? I hoped you would read the article or I wouldn't have linked it.

Why did you ignore this

Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/

Are you lying or are you supporting your point?

It absolutely is, you quoted it yourself.

I just found that even the Police Chief's found many of the riots were instigated by the right. Here's more proof.

Police: Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.
Published: July 27, 2020, 5:48 AM
Updated: July 28, 2020, 9:53 AM
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/...supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/


Man who helped ignite George Floyd riots identified as white supremacist: Police
A masked, umbrella-wielding man accused of helping incite riots and looting in the aftermath of George Floyd's police-involved death has been identified as a member of a white supremacist group that aimed to stir racial tensions amid largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, according to police.
ByKarma Allen
July 29, 2020, 3:39 PM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536

There is many such articles, because there was a LOT of RW meddling to escalate the protests into riots.

Did you really think I couldn't support my argument?

 

I didn't reinvent anything.

Do these guys look like ANTIFA to you?




Those were taken at the Michigan Capitol building, summer 2020

 

Show me when they surrounded the homes of supreme Court justices...... Their actual homes, NOT the supreme Court itself.

 

Sooooooo...

On a scale of Wal-Mart Black Friday to the Bowling Green Massacre, how bad was it?

 

It's unbelievable how these righties will just outright reinvent history to serve their agenda...

 

Don't need to. All I have to do is point to the number of times ant-abortionists have done the same thing to both abortion clinics and the homes of staff from those clinics. Exactly the same conduct and exactly as bad.

 

How about THIS insurrection don't you believe these protestors should be arrested for insurrection and violations of 18 US Code 1507? Should we go after them with the same fervor we did those who violated the law on Jan 6? If not why not and what about Harris and Schumer and other Dems inciting this insurrection?

 

And they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law don't you agree?

 

Huh?
Nobody "surrounded" any houses of the SC Justices...
THIS is what happened:

gathering in front of their homes

Surrounded (Definition):
to enclose on all sides; encompass
To avoid further embarrassment, I would (respectfully) suggest that one learns the meaning of "surrounded".
Misguided hyperbole is a horrible look.
Best of luck, and you're welcome.

 

If they committed a crime fine, although in the case in question? Unless there were aggravating circumstances the punishment would most likely be a fine. None of which however changes the point I was originally commented on i.e. that if the behavior of the pro-abortion protestors is unacceptable as claimed in the original post then identical behavior by the 'other side' also has to be as well. Yet all too often this little 'detail' seems to get overlooked by posters on is forum.

 

Oh yeah because that's such an important distinction....

Instead of going to the supreme Court to protest in front of the building like normal protesters the woke mob actually goes to their home to harass them.

Do I need to include the definition of home or domicile for your benefit?

How does one even find out where supreme Court Justice lives? Probably from one of the Little radical liberal aids that they have working for them. Probably the same one leaking confidential court paperwork

 

I was unaware supreme Court justices lived or worked at those places.

I don't support anyone going to private property unwelcomed. If they were on the street in front of the clinic that would be public property

 

OK I'll explain as simply as I can . If it's wrong to protest outside the home of a Supreme Court Judge it must by default also be wrong to protest outside the home of an abortion clinic employee, to protest outside your home or to protest outside my home.

 

You would not have to explain that if you didn't dishonestly and disingenuously cut my post where I already said that.

 

Totally, Phyx...
That is almost as bad as trying to "debate" someone who doesn't know the difference between "surrounded" and "gathering in front".

 

I 'cut' to that bit because it was the only part of your statement that was disingenuous. Why make it? If you just gone with the second part of your statement there would have been nothing to say.

 

Now you're simply projecting your own disingenuity on to me.

I clearly stated I do not support people coming unwelcomed onto private property and for some reason, you felt the need to cut that out of my post and sit there and say you had to explain it to me when I had already clearly explained it.

But go ahead and humor me and tell me what was disingenuous about any part of my argument