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

No, you just claimed that you'd never heard of Supreme Court Judges working in abortion clinics! As if that was ever part the argument.

 

You were the one trying to make this harassment of supreme Court justices equal to abortion clinic employees to begin with!!!

Jesus wept...

You called it exactly as bad.
Sure because trying to intimidate supreme Court justices in the midst of important litigation is exactly as bad as harassing abortion clinic employees... That has to be the worst failed what aboutism I have ever seen

Perhaps on mars or Saturn...

 

I 'said' there was no difference between an anti-abortionist demonstrating outside the home of someone who works in an abortion clinic and a pro-abortion demonstrating outside the house of a judge! The point is that in both cases the actions of the demonstrators and the locations being picketed are the same.

And yet somehow you seemed to feel the need to state, and I quote. 'I was unaware supreme Court justices lived or worked at those places (abortion clinics)' Really? Did anyone suggest abortionist's work in the Supreme court? How is your comment remotely relevant - to anything?

 

Try again without cutting out 90% of my post.

Instead of your very lame what aboutism you could simply condemn their actions instead of saying oh but they do it too...

It would be much easier and even managed to save a bit of face at the same time!

 

I'm not interested in saving (your face) - you made the statement not me. Nor is it 'what aboutism'. Point to anywhere in my posts where I favored one side or the other on the issue of protesting outside peoples homes. My point was that both sides have engaged in the same conduct. That being the case it is axiomatic that if such conduct is 'wrong' it must wrong for everyone. That is the only point I have been addressing.

 

Your initial post to me was the anti-abortion activists have done the exact same thing.....

No matter how you wish to twist it that is not remotely the same thing as going to a supreme Court Justice is home to try to intimidate them in the midst of litigation and national law.

The fact that you don't wish to acknowledge that does not change the reality of that. So have a good day and carry on... Carry on I say, good day!

 

Ah, so now we come to the nub of it.! You do oppose the actions of the pro-abortion activists concerned and rate their conduct as being far more serious than that of an anti-abortionist demonstrating outside say the home of an abortion Doctor.

So tell me. Is not that Doctor a citizen of the United States? Are they not entitled to exactly the same consideration as any other citizen, do they not have the exactly the same constitutional rights as any other citizen? And is a Judge of the US Supreme Court somehow entitled to more rights than any other citizen? Because if not were back to my original point. If its wrong for pro-abortionists to protest outside a judges house it must be equally wrong for anti-abortionists to do the same outside someone else's home.

 

Like 20 posts to go I already said I oppose anyone showing up unwanted on private property. You actually quoted the post after you deleted that part.

Hey did you hear that Democrats are going to hire OJ Simpson to find the scotus leaker right after he finds Nicole's killer?

 

Fine then, we're in complete agreement. And BTW I actually acknowledged in post (74) that I had no problem with the second part of the post in question. This is because I agreed with that part, which is why I didn't include it in my response.

Whatever makes you happy.

 

No.

IF they broke or break the law, yes.

First of all I'm GOOGLing and DuckGoing and not finding much but RW hair pulling over the leak and the "violence it MIGHT" cause. Have Vice President Harris and Majority Leader Schumer called for violence? I'm not finding it. Links please I'd like to know more.

But to your insurrection point, even if the Supreme's change their mind it will not rise to the level of fundamentally changing our Government as the attempt to keep Donald Judas tRump in office AFTER he lost reelection was. So, no it can never be insurrection.

For all the weeping and nashing of teeth by the right, so far I've found that there was a peacful demonstration outside a Federal Court house in Philly and a Catholic Church was "tagged" in Boulder CO., for which, if the people responsible are caught, they should be prosecuted. Nobody has broken doors, assaulted police, wiped **** on walls of buildings or tried to hang Alito.

 

What should be the penalty for such dog whistles?

 

They're protesting outside the homes of court justices. That's as bad as it gets and it's unacceptable.

 

Its still a threat, even if Schumer did realize his **** up and start back peddling.

 

Huh? Lolwut?
"as bad it gets"?
^Give me a break...
NOT...Even...CLOSE...

 

Protesting outside the justices' homes and terrorizing their families is unacceptable. Yes, that's as bad as it gets. The only reason the terrorists stayed on the street was because of the armed security details posted between them and the justices' homes.

 

Let me guess. The protestors are straight, white, male and Republican?

 

Humm ... armed security did you say?
I wonder why that didn't stop the January 6th insurrectionists ... IMHO ... <-- THAT IS as bad as it gets.

 

Huh?
Apparently, you didn't read the link in the OP (before commenting)?

 

'A MOSTLY PEACEFUL FIREBOMBING': Pro-Abortion Domestic Terrorists Firebomb Wisconsin Pro-Life Non-Profit.

​

Here's comes some of the folks on the Left riot's again.

 

The protestors in question were NOT "terrorists"...
Give me a break...

Glad to see someone admit that the protestors "stayed on the street".
Earlier in the thread (someone who was obviously very confused about the nature of the protest) claimed that the homes were "surrounded"...

 

How about THIS insurrection don't you believe these protestors should be arrested for insurrection and violations of 18 US Code 1507?

Why not?

18 US Code 1507

So which is it should we arrest those who are violating the law? There is also a Virginia law that applies

18 US Code 1507 doesn't require violence but as just one example a Pro-Life Group's HQ was firebombed last night.

And
"Chief Justice John Roberts publicly chastised Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday over comments Schumer made outside the Supreme Court as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.

Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested that President Donald Trump's court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, "won't know what hit" them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions. He spoke during a rally on the sidewalk in front of the court building.


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Schumer said."

It is as much as Jan 6 is being claimed to have been a insurrection.

Live updates | LA abortion rights protest turns violent

...Authorities say about 250 people had been marching peacefully for abortion rights before the clash. LAPD Chief Michel Moore says some demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at officers. One officer was struck with a baton.
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/article261017792.html#storylink=cpy

 

That "attack" has "RW False Flag" written all over it...
^PROVE Me Wrong..

 

18-1507 makes no mention of insurrection. But! If, people broke the law and the DA believes he has a case they should be prosecuted.

I explained "why not". But here is a better, more complete explanation:
Insurrection Law and Legal Definition
Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:

Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

You really only have to cite the law once, it would help if you actually cited it instead of referencing it, I assume you don't because, upon reading, it's apparent that nothing happening now, even if in violation of 18-1507 rises to the level of insurrection.

Of course Roberts would stand up for his fellow Justices, and Schumer's comments were over the top and ill advised, I admit. BUT, don't come close to the 4 hours of successive speakers, including the sitting president of These United States, that incited the January 6, 2021 INSURRECTION.

NOT EVEN CLOSE!

If they can be identified I would hope they are prosecuted.

 

These people think they are above the law because they are sure they are right and everybody else is wrong. Hey liberals, does that sound like anyone who you hate every waking minute?

If the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling, so be it. If it favors one group over another, we as citizens have to accept it. Kind of like elections. You kind of have to accept them, no matter if they are in your favor or not.

 

Nobody has to prove you wrong since you haven't proven with any ounce of credibility that you are correct..