Protests are one thing. Giving people money to provide reports of the locations of individuals to a radical group is another. Especially considering the attempt on one of those individuals life.Protests are exercises of free speech. Of any people in the US who should fundamentally understand and protect that capability, it should be the justices of the SC.
This is the system that they represent working as it was designed. They have to deal with it.
The SC justices have put themselves on a place where they probably need increased security due to their picking an Incredibly unpopular side of an argument that had been settled (judicially) for 60 years. It’s a place of contention that they have only occupied a few times during our national history. It’s similar to the executive’s need for a secret service.Protests are one thing. Giving people money to provide reports of the locations of individuals to a radical group is another. Especially considering the attempt on one of those individuals life.
See how that plays out if a group was offering money for the hour by hour location of Biden after an attempt on his life. Protests are one thing. Trying to kill public figures then offering money for their location is another. Thank God people in this country throughout haven’t shied away from taking an unpopular side of an argument out of fear of violence. We would be living in a very different place.The SC justices have put themselves on a place where they probably need increased security due to their picking an Incredibly unpopular side of an argument that had been settled (judicially) for 60 years. It’s a place of contention that they have only occupied a few times during our national history. It’s similar to the executive’s need for a secret service.
The fact that people are keeping track of their movements (for mundane purposes or malicious purposes) are not inherently illegal nor should they be. The people should be allowed, even outside of working hours, to know where their representatives inhabit.
There is a very, very, very long precedent of Americans protesting those in power outside their residences. Early on, many of the protests weren’t even inherently peaceful, so the fact that we can provide security services to insure peaceful protest is actually a step in the right direction.
The difference is that the president’s itinerary and his location is generally publicly disclosed at any given time by his office. It’s already publicized. Then again, reporting agencies still pay their reporters to be aware of those schedules. that’s how and why we have a press pool.See how that plays out if a group was offering money for the hour by hour location of Biden after an attempt on his life. Protests are one thing. Trying to kill public figures then offering money for their location is another.
The judiciary has begun inserting themselves into public policy
By choosing to hear a case that had what they in their congressional testimony labeled as settled precedent?They did the exact opposite and removed themselves from it
1. That is exactly what Kagan did regarding ObergefellBy choosing to hear a case that had what they in their congressional testimony labeled as settled precedent?
Interesting way to extract one’s self from the spotlight… to select to reinterpret a topic that was by your own definition settled.
That hasn’t happened very often in US History. Overturning precedent is a big deal no matter which side of the precedent you tend to agree with. Typically we’ve only seen it applied to correcting civil rights errancies Like in Brown V Board.
A better example would have been a member of Congress. Let’s say Pelosi just had an attempt on her life by a person of a particular ideology. Now other people with the same ideology are offering to pay people for real-time information as to her whereabouts. Such actions would raise alarms (as they should).The difference is that the president’s itinerary and his location is generally publicly disclosed at any given time by his office. It’s already publicized. Then again, reporting agencies still pay their reporters to be aware of those schedules. that’s how and why we have a press pool.
The judiciary has begun inserting themselves into public policy differently than previous iterations by the decisions they’ve made in which cases to hear and the decisions they’ve made on those hearings. They are going to be in the limelite. Whether someone wants to pay a private investigator or a beat writer to tail them around SC makes no difference. The only difference in them and the President is the level of security detail they have.
Sure. They should raise alarm…. But they are not inherently malicious and shouldn’t be considered so. Just like buying a gun isn’t inherently malicious even though someone might use that gun to commit a violent act.A better example would have been a member of Congress. Let’s say Pelosi just had an attempt on her life by a person of a particular ideology. Now other people with the same ideology are offering to pay people for real-time information as to her whereabouts. Such actions would raise alarms (as they should).
I’m not sure where that line is drawn. I do know if a member of a group tried to kill Pelosi and afterwards that same group started paying people to report to them on Pelosi’s whereabouts there would be federal law enforcement at the door of those individuals in a matter of hours. Biden certainly wouldn’t be defending those actions.Sure. They should raise alarm…. But they are not inherently malicious and shouldn’t be considered so. Just like buying a gun isn’t inherently malicious even though someone might use that gun to commit a violent act.
You say that the members of the groups are associated. I have not seen any reference to that.I’m not sure where that line is drawn. I do know if a member of a group tried to kill Pelosi and afterwards that same group started paying people to report to them on Pelosi’s whereabouts there would be federal law enforcement at the door of those individuals in a matter of hours. Biden certainly wouldn’t be defending those actions.
The guy out in front of SCOTUS with the sign in the background of the MSNBC coverage holding up the sign that said “Fentanyl: My Body My Choice” brought the lulz.The slogan has always been dumb no matter who is using it, but the fact that it now doesn’t poll well among Dems because it’s associated with choices besides abortion is pretty funny
congress needs to investigateFound this a little disturbing. A month after an attempt on a Supreme Court Justice’s life an activist group is paying money for tips as to Justices locations when they’re out in public.
Aren’t you the one whining about Congress wasting money on investigations? You’re upset about them spending money investigating an ACTUAL attack on Congress vs a theoretical attack on a single SC justice which was stopped by the potential attacker himself. And now you want to investigate people unrelated to the attacker that just so happen to also not like the SC?congress needs to investigate
many in congress have advocated for this illegal activity, this time there is real evidence.Aren’t you the one whining about Congress wasting money on investigations? You’re upset about them spending money investigating an ACTUAL attack on Congress vs a theoretical attack on a single SC justice which was stopped by the potential attacker himself. And now you want to investigate people unrelated to the attacker that just so happen to also not like the SC?
Doesn’t seem like a job for Congress as much as it does the FBI.
Donald Trump advocated for actually attacking congress… an event that was actually carried out. Get your priorities straight.many in congress have advocated for this illegal activity, this time there is real evidence.
his quote?Donald Trump advocated for actually attacking congress… an event that was actually carried out. Get your priorities straight.
Only one of those things were attacks on democracy. They are of false equivalence.The only people worth listening to about this stuff are the people who were angered by both the summer of riots in 2020 and the capitol riot on Jan 6th. I think we know where WATU and the NYT fall on that
The article WATU posted was about violence including but not limited to Jan 6. You are correct though….the violence part is a false equivalence. Disturbing there are so few people on this board who are willing to condemn both Jan 6 and the BLM riots.Only one of those things were attacks on democracy. They are of false equivalence.
a bigger threat to our democracy; the party in power, using their position for political party purposes.The article WATU posted was about violence including but not limited to Jan 6. You are correct though….the violence part is a false equivalence. Disturbing there are so few people on this board who are willing to condemn both Jan 6 and the BLM riots.
I agree for the reason stated. Would add that Trump’s rhetoric had a role in the 2020 violence - he stokes division.a bigger threat to our democracy; the party in power, using their position for political party purposes.
Just from his past posts, I think Rivalcane(aTUfan) is excusing all actions by Trump, rather than admitting he stokes divisions. He ignores all specific purposes of Jan 6, other than excusing Trump's actions.I agree for the reason stated. Would add that Trump’s rhetoric had a role in the 2020 violence - he stokes division.
Many of those "protests" were shameful though and essentially troublemakers out to sow chaos. The Jan. 6 folks had a very specific purpose.
If so Trump's campaign rallies for his first term would have disqualified him. Certainly his Jan 6 speech would disqualify him for ever running again.Condemning violence committed in lieu of political discourse should be a pre-requisite to continued service in public office.
Same would obviously apply to Obama. Pretty unrealistic standard in todays politics it would appear.If so Trump's campaign rallies for his first term would have disqualified him. Certainly his Jan 6 speech would disqualify him for ever running again.
Huh?Same would obviously apply to Obama. Pretty unrealistic standard in todays politics it would appear.
Why did you even quote Aston. The thing you said has nothing to do with that quote.the supreme court does not decide whether a law is good or bad. They rule on whether it is Constitutional.