SCOTUS

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15552
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15552
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by cradleandshoot »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34245
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Typical Lax Dad »



And

“I wish you would!”
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34245
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

“I wish you would!”
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34245
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Typical Lax Dad »



;) ;)
“I wish you would!”
PizzaSnake
Posts: 5358
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by PizzaSnake »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:01 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
So you’d like this SC to reverse some more prior decisions?

Familiar with this one?

“8. The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.”

From

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html

United States Supreme Court

MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., INC.(1994)

Read decision and get back to me.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
jhu72
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

PizzaSnake wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:29 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:01 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
So you’d like this SC to reverse some more prior decisions?

Familiar with this one?

“8. The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.”

From

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html

United States Supreme Court

MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., INC.(1994)

Read decision and get back to me.
... exactly. +1

KellyAnne and friends are such POS hypocrites. :roll:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
jhu72
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

PizzaSnake wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:29 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:01 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
So you’d like this SC to reverse some more prior decisions?

Familiar with this one?

“8. The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.”

From

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html

United States Supreme Court

MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., INC.(1994)

Read decision and get back to me.



Are we allowed to disagree with previous scotus rulings?

Facts and circumstances change. Democrats are proving to be unbalanced actors in the body politic. You can’t make public statements or distribute literature that incites illegal activity or violence, like the Democratic dark money group ruthsentus is doing. Speech that creates a considerable risk of harm such as Democrats marching in front of private residences of judges is that.
a fan
Posts: 19690
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 am You can’t make public statements or distribute literature that incites illegal activity or violence
Sure you can. Trump did on Jan 6th, and nothing happened. What's more, you and millions of Americans didn't care.

Now that you think that a Dem's words nearly got a Republican killed, suddenly you care.

Sorry, mate. Either hold them all accountable for inciting violence, regardless of party.....or sit back and enjoy the coming violence, because you had your chance to hold our leaders accountable, and chose party affiliation over country.

You made this bed. Time to lie in it.
PizzaSnake
Posts: 5358
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by PizzaSnake »

Peter Brown wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:29 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:01 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
So you’d like this SC to reverse some more prior decisions?

Familiar with this one?

“8. The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.”

From

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html

United States Supreme Court

MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., INC.(1994)

Read decision and get back to me.



Are we allowed to disagree with previous scotus rulings?

Facts and circumstances change. Democrats are proving to be unbalanced actors in the body politic. You can’t make public statements or distribute literature that incites illegal activity or violence, like the Democratic dark money group ruthsentus is doing. Speech that creates a considerable risk of harm such as Democrats marching in front of private residences of judges is that.
“Facts and circumstances change. ”

Soo, you are amenable to changes in constitutionally “protected rights”. Excellent. I have a few in mind myself, starting with the second amendment.

Ready to “horse trade”?
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

PizzaSnake wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:57 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:29 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:01 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:24 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:08 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:58 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:55 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:54 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:50 am Just to be clear, no one on here is arguing in favor of threatening or killing judges.
Donald Trump explicitly did so and should have been rejected by voters if only for that, but many millions did not reject him, they cheered.

Thank goodness this deranged person called 911 on himself.
Refresh my memory MD, what judge did the dumpster explicitly threaten?? I must have missed that one.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... cks-courts
Thanks.

cradle, did that answer your question?
Yes sir, it answers it.



There isn’t one Trump quote or tweet in that article that comes even within a universe close of when Schumer in effect called for violence against Kavanaugh.

The article pulls 2015 tweets of Trump before he was POTUS, tweets where he criticizes a South African judges decision to go light on Oscar Pitorius, tweets where he criticizes the 9th circuit saying ‘they’ll be overturned’ (oooooh, dangerous!).

Could anyone post a tweet or quote where he says anything remotely close to ‘he’ll pay the price’ like Schumer did regarding Kavanaugh? Anything even remotely close?
Chucks words in this matter are coming back to bite him in the arse. It was political rhetoric normally harmless until some nut job takes it seriously. There is no shortage of nut jobs on both sides nowadays. Why would any person want to serve on the SCOTUS in this hostile environment? You can't even go home at night without a bunch of ass wipes protesting in front of your house. There is a time and place for protesting.




Protesters should be forbidden by law from protesting in front of or near a *private* residence. I don’t care who you are or what party you’re with; your home is yours and not some random demented nutcase’s threatening your kids. Democrats continue to wink at a breakdown in civil order.
So you’d like this SC to reverse some more prior decisions?

Familiar with this one?

“8. The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.”

From

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html

United States Supreme Court

MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., INC.(1994)

Read decision and get back to me.



Are we allowed to disagree with previous scotus rulings?

Facts and circumstances change. Democrats are proving to be unbalanced actors in the body politic. You can’t make public statements or distribute literature that incites illegal activity or violence, like the Democratic dark money group ruthsentus is doing. Speech that creates a considerable risk of harm such as Democrats marching in front of private residences of judges is that.
“Facts and circumstances change. ”

Soo, you are amenable to changes in constitutionally “protected rights”. Excellent. I have a few in mind myself, starting with the second amendment.

Ready to “horse trade”?



No need to horse trade. I’m not a 2A purist.

No handguns or semi automatics til 21.

From 21-30, I want you to provide bi-annual evidence you’re not a lunatic.

I’d like full sweeps of inner cities for illegal guns.

(Also no voting until you’re 21)
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5344
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

What do the "full sweeps" look like? How are they carried out? Local law enforcement or FBI?
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5344
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Meanwhile, my wife is a complete irrational seditionist, but I'm still calling only balls and strikes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... lawmakers/

"Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona — 27 more than previously known — to set aside Joe Biden’s popular vote victory and “choose” presidential electors, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

The Post reported last month that Thomas sent emails to two Arizona House members, in November and December 2020, urging them to help overturn Biden’s win by selecting presidential electors — a responsibility that belongs to Arizona voters under state law. Thomas sent the messages using FreeRoots, an online platform intended to make it easy to send pre-written emails to multiple elected officials.

New documents show that Thomas indeed used the platform to reach many lawmakers simultaneously. On Nov. 9, she sent identical emails to 20 members of the Arizona House and seven Arizona state senators. That represents more than half of the Republican members of the state legislature at the time.

The message, just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, urged lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and claimed that the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone.” They had “power to fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen,” the email said.

The lawmakers who received the email was then-Rep. Anthony Kern, a Stop the Steal supporter who lost his reelection bid in November 2020 and then joined U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) and others as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence, a last-ditch effort to overturn Biden’s victory. Kern was photographed outside the Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6 but has said he did not enter the building, according to local media reports.

Kern did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. He is seeking his party’s nomination for a seat in the Arizona state Senate and has been endorsed by former president Donald Trump.

On Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college were slated to cast their votes and seal Biden’s victory, Thomas emailed 22 House members and one senator. “Before you choose your state’s Electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” the email said. It linked to a video of a man urging swing-state lawmakers to “put things right” and “not give in to cowardice.”

Speaker of the House Russell “Rusty” Bowers and Rep. Shawnna Bolick, the two recipients previously identified, told The Post in May that the outreach from Thomas had no bearing on their decisions about how to handle claims of election fraud.

But the revelation that Ginni Thomas was directly involved in pressing them to override the popular vote — an act that would have been without precedent in the modern era — intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and attempts to subvert it. Ginni Thomas’s status as a leading conservative political activist has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices.

Ginni Thomas did not respond to requests seeking comment for this report. She has long insisted that she and her husband operate in separate professional lanes.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to questions for Clarence Thomas.

The Post obtained the emails under Arizona’s public records law, which — unlike the laws in some other key 2020 swing states — allows the public to access emails, text messages and other written communications to and from state lawmakers.

In March, The Post and CBS News obtained text messages that Ginni Thomas sent in the weeks after the 2020 election to Mark Meadows, then Trump’s chief of staff. The messages showed Thomas spreading false claims and urging Meadows to keep fighting for Trump to remain in the White House.

“That conflict of interest just screams at you,” said Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who serves on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, on MSNBC in response to The Post’s May report revealing the emails to Bolick and Bowers.

Schiff pointed to Clarence Thomas’s decision not to recuse when Trump went to the Supreme Court to try to block the House committee from getting access to his White House records. The high court declined to block the release of those documents. Thomas, siding with Trump, was the only justice to dissent.

“Here you have the wife of a Supreme Court justice,” Schiff said, trying to “get Arizona to improperly cast aside the votes of millions. And also, to add to it, her husband on the Supreme Court, writing a dissent in a case arguing against providing records to Congress that might have revealed some of these same e-mails.”

After the May article, Mark Paoletta — a longtime ally of the Thomases who, as a member of the George H.W. Bush administration, played a role in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court — confirmed that Ginni Thomas signed the emails, but he sought to minimize her role.

“Ginni signed her name to a pre-written form letter that was signed by thousands of citizens and sent to state legislators across the country,” Paoletta wrote on Twitter on May 20. He described Thomas’s activities as “a private citizen joining a letter writing campaign” and added, sarcastically, “How disturbing, what a threat!”

The letter-writing campaigns were organized on FreeRoots.com, which advertised itself as a platform to amplify grass-roots advocacy across the political spectrum. A Post review of its archived webpages shows that it was heavily used in late 2020 by groups seeking to overturn the presidential election results.

One of those groups was Every Legal Vote, which organized the campaign to send the message that Ginni Thomas sent on Nov. 9. In those first days after the Nov. 3 election, Every Legal Vote described itself online as a “labor of love by American citizens, in partnership” with the nonprofit United in Purpose, according to webpages preserved by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. United in Purpose, which harnesses data to galvanize conservative Christian voters, in recent years hosted luncheons where Thomas presented her Impact Awards to right-wing leaders.

On Dec. 14, 2020, Biden electors in Arizona cast their votes, after the election results were certified by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) and Gov. Doug Ducey (R).

Trump electors met in Arizona that day and signed a document declaring themselves the state’s “duly elected and qualified Electors.” One of them was Kern, the outgoing state representative.

Kern was among more than a dozen lawmakers who signed on to a letter to Congress that same day calling for the state’s electoral votes to go to Trump or “be nullified completely until a full forensic audit can be conducted.”

The lawmakers’ letter was an exhibit in Kern and Gohmert’s lawsuit asking a federal court to rule that Pence had the “exclusive authority and sole discretion” in deciding which electoral votes to count for a given state. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the case was dismissed in lower courts. The day after the Jan. 6 insurrection, the court declined in an unsigned order."
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:30 pm What do the "full sweeps" look like? How are they carried out? Local law enforcement or FBI?




Some people won’t like it.

But it is what I say it is. A sweep of the inner city. The residents will be safer in the end. But there is gonna be howling and crying about how abusive it is.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t go complaining on Twitter or Fanlax about how you want strict gun laws but won’t actually go after the problem. I’m giving you the primary tool to enact real change.

You want fewer murders? Or is that just a huge front?

Why the inner city and not Billy Bob’s trailer for n Kentucky? Same reason Clyde went to banks to rob money: that’s where they keep the cash.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5344
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Peter Brown wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 5:51 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:30 pm What do the "full sweeps" look like? How are they carried out? Local law enforcement or FBI?




Some people won’t like it.

But it is what I say it is. A sweep of the inner city. The residents will be safer in the end. But there is gonna be howling and crying about how abusive it is.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t go complaining on Twitter or Fanlax about how you want strict gun laws but won’t actually go after the problem. I’m giving you the primary tool to enact real change.

You want fewer murders? Or is that just a huge front?

Why the inner city and not Billy Bob’s trailer for n Kentucky? Same reason Clyde went to banks to rob money: that’s where they keep the cash.
Respectfully, you answered my questions by restating what I asked you for detail on. Let’s pretend there is a 4th Amendment. How does a sweep pass constitutional muster? I do want fewer murders and less gun violence. But we cannot suggest just roaming bands of LEOs accosting people — where? Inner cities? Who? Black folks who fit the [universal] drug dealer profile — and seizing their person and property. How will this be done?
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

I doubt Petey has thought through those questions, just as his dismissal of paying attention to the "Billy Bob" trailer dweller may mean that "urban" is just code for racial presumption...

And where does he think those meth dealers cook? "urban" ?

That said, it is indeed true that # of murders committed with guns (33% of all firearm fatalities) are quite concentrated in definable neighborhood areas. However, murder rates (percentage of population) though are not nearly as concentrated. That follows poverty wherever it's found, especially in regions with high gun ownership and low income, both in rural and dense pop centers.

I'm all for targeting highest gun murder areas for the most resources (assuming we could figure out the 4th A issues!), but that's going to quite surprisingly not simply mean "urban" or "inner city", much less the other presumption of "Democrat"...rather, it's concentrated in very specific neighborhoods, though that's neither racial nor Dem driven...rather, it's poverty. Red or Blue....but given the racial disparities in poverty, yup, we're gonna see a quite likely overreach by those who like Petey's suggestion of a "sweep" in "urban" or "inner city" areas.

On the other hand, suicides are nearly twice the # of firearm deaths as murders...

It's important to note that both murder rates with guns and suicide rates with guns are highest in states with highest gun ownership rates...legal gun ownership...

https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/ex ... fatalities

So, reducing gun ownership, legal or illegal, certainly makes sense...but is the issue of concentrated murders in poverty-stricken areas (rural or dense pop) really gonna be solved by gun "sweeps" with all of the attendant 4th A issues of abuse of the residents of those areas, who are predominantly the victims of gun crime, not the perpetrators?
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”