Are We a Nation of Laws or Not?
On the news tonight were pictures of "protests" outside the homes of 6 (only 6) of the nine Supreme Court Justices. I had heard that was happening but had not seen confirmation of more than a handful of people.
This is very much against federal law; protests attempting to intimidate or influence jurists are not allowed, doubly so in residential areas. But while the protests scream into their megaphones, our justice system sits idle. Our President sits idle, saying only that he supports abortion. Governors and mayors sit idle. Liberals country wide encourage such illegal actions.
We have recently seen liberal cities under siege from "protests" (read: riots) without response. We have seen our President refuse to enforce immigration laws with orders not to deport anyone found in the interior. We have seen liberal mayors warning illegal aliens when INS will be in the area, and we have seen them participating in destructive "protests" destroying private property.
Can someone tell me, are we a nation of laws or a nation of Democrats, to whom the laws do not apply?Who says that the protesters are "intimidating" jurists? What about peaceably assembly, but you rightwing types don't like protests anyway, we should all just take it and be quiet? Well, that is not going to happen.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3 … ces-homes/
Based on this it was clear that the law is being violated by the protesters with their being at the jurists homes, so I stand corrected. However, we need to take that energy to Republican legislatures and state houses, and keep the Abortion issue front and center and show the people what to fear under Republican rule.
What happened to the law on January 6th 2021?The language is extremely clear; protestors may not "influence" jurists.
I do believe that those rioters (as opposed to those in the rest of the nation) are being actively pursued and charged, with several guilty verdicts rendered already. Perhaps because they were in the backyard of Democrats. One wonders what would be the response if all the judges were subjected to that illegal attempt to influence rather than just the conservative ones. Apparently they would be arrested and jailed; that's what happens when conservative people do such things. But not liberals; all we have to do is declare allegiance to the Democrat party and the law does not apply.
C'mon, Cred; what they are doing is, plain and simple, against the law. And they are allowed to do it...because liberal "leaders" don't care or actively encourage it.You know, Wilderness, if I had my druthers even more heads need to roll from January 6th. The more the merrier and let's follow the bread crumbs all the way to the top.
Whatever the liberals have done regarding these justices, it has not involved violence or property damage. I acknowledge that the protest is inappropriate and illegal and that Biden needs to bring that to the attention of the protesters.
But, regardless, I want the Right to remain on the hot seat never being able to rid itself of protest and political pressure regarding its policies.What those idiots are doing strikes at the core of our justice system. Intimidating and influencing a jurist is no worse than what happened in January.
We have always had trouble with people intimidating judges, jurors and even prosecutors. The Mob was very good at it in the past, and many have died from such action...and we sit back and do nothing when it is in our face. On national television no less!
You may find it appropriate and right to apply political pressure to SCOTUS justices...as long as it is for a cause you approve of. That is where we as a nation are going, after all; everything is fine as long as I approve of the cause! The ends justify the means...as long as I approve of the ends. And we as a nation are too stupid to realize where that leads in the long run, letting it grow and fester without concern. Because we approve of the cause. Insanity!"You may find it appropriate and right to apply political pressure to SCOTUS justices...as long as it is for a cause you approve of."
I don't recall saying this, I did not say that it was appropriate. But, I am still gunning for the Righties in any and all ways that is lawfulNor did you condemn it or give any indication that it should be stopped. Instead you pointed out that (so far) no damage has been done or anyone hurt. You say that Biden should tell the protestors that it is illegal...but not that he should do anything about it.
This is not equivalent to a speeding ticket, where you might get just a warning. Any attempt to intimidate or influence a jurist is 100% unacceptable.Ok, you win.
I condemn it and it should be punished consistent with anyone else breaking the law. It has to be fair as I show no mercy to the ruffians of January 6th.Well damn . . . did you guys just have a 'moment', a breakthrough?
I knew there was hope for ya. Now, about some of that other stuff . . .
GA
Remain on the hot seat... what hot seat? We, after 50 years will look at a victory, and look at the protester's lawbreakers, and poor losers.
I mean come on is this, not the reality. States have won the right to govern in regard to abortion laws.
Like I said, are you fearful of what you will hear from the women that live in red states?I'm fearful for the women that won't be able to make decisions about their own bodies because a majority in their state want to subjugate them based on their own beliefs. Have your beliefs but do not expect to use them to impede the rights of others.
I wouldn't gloat yet, rumor has it that Chief Justice Roberts is having misgivings about overturning Roe in its entirety and is trying to get a rightwing Justice to come his way. The plot thickens?
No, why should not Red States women have an opinion. It is only when their opinion can be used to coerce others into their preference and beliefs, is where I have a problem
Conservatives cannot see that "majority rule" cannot apply to the most basic of our rights and liberties.
It will be up to the court to determine if available and safe abortion can be considered a part Of those basic rights and liberties....
I am 100% positive these protesters are not intimidating the SC justices. They have every right to protest, but the law states they cannot protest in front of these judges' homes. It also said protesters can not disrupt street traffic...
This has nothing to do wit 'taking it". This has to do with not putting oneself above the law. PERIOD. What the hell gives these protesters the right to break the law? This mindset infuriates me and sickens me that we have this kind of element in our society.
" However, we need to take that energy to Republican legislatures and statehouses, and keep the Abortion issue front and center and show the people what to fear under Republican rule."
MY God ya just don't get it --- there is another side to all this. There are people that are pro-life, and there are people that are in no way interested in the liberal ideology of abortion. These are the people that are being heard by the justices --- they are saying to let individual states make the laws the people of their state support. So, simple --- The voice of the liberal has been quieted, and now all voices will be heard. What the hell gives anyone the right to dictate what abortion laws will be stated to state? It would seem you may fear Republican rule, or what I should say you may just fear what you might hear if the women of republican states' voices were heard with their vote. You do realize Republicans as a rule are not wired with a liberal groupthink mindset? We have every right to be heard, and it looks as if the SC will provide us with a forum.
This just may show many women in more conservative states do not want the same abortion laws as liberal blue states. It may just show that women's views vary on abortion altogether due to different values.
Do you have the nerve to ask what happen on Jan 6th... I would think it is obvious what happen on Jan 6th. A somewhat subdued riot that lasted a couple of hours., that in no way compared to the left's summer of love destruction.
You raise several important points. Good people consider the Rule of Law. Leftists do not. ANY means are justified in their eyes to attain, exercise, hold, and grow the power to force other people to obey them,
It's time to realize that liberal politicians have politicized our laws. to benefit an agenda, abortion in this case. They will not enforce the laws on books., in fact, they are sending out dog whistles to encourage breaking the law to keep these abortion protests front and center. Yes, we have a president, and many Democratic representatives out and out encouraging these protesters to protest inform of the private homes of protesters. As they did in the summer of 2020... The wonderful summer of love, where hundreds of police were hurt, many citizens killed, and billions of dollars of damage were done. We sat and watched that did we not? We will sit and watch this will we not?
Until law-abiding citizens demand our laws be followed we will see this type of lawbreaking. We can push back with our votes... Get rid of politicians that support breaking the law when they feel it is politically necessary.
At this point, the abortion thing is to say "look over here" not at the mess at the border, the rising gas and food prices, and the fact that almost daily we have some form of crisis this nut job president and his administration has created. In the news now we have a baby formula problem. Could one ever imagine this kind of crap could happen in the US?
Welcome to the world of day late, buck short Biden.
He needs to be impeached, the time is long past due. This administration is ill equipt to run the country. We will have our laws ignored, and we the people need to be heard, and heard loudly in the fall or forever shut the hell up.
Time to look at our problems smack in the face, and not be fooled by smoke and mirrors --- Look here not there...
WE need to have a president that problem solves, not one that creates problems.
In my view, we have a very vile element running the country, they will do anything to try to keep power, and laws mean nothing to them ---
nothing.
Just consider Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop BS, and what has and is being uncovered about our FBI, CIA, and ultimately the DNC... My God should this not be enough for every American to realize we need to clean house?
Hey, if you want our laws to be followed vote for people that respect our laws. It seems so simple. Actually, red states do just that, they vote for people they respect to enforce laws. Blue states vote for people that represent their lack of respect for laws.
It seems that even a defense tied to 1st Amendment rights won't hold in this case. and certainly not for Virginia addresses. Virginia has its own law prohibiting it.
Although the protests haven't been violent, they have not been peaceful. A look-around found many videos showing chants, slogans, and signs that were clearly intended to influence or intimidate—which brings in the Federal statute.
No, these are not legally protected 'peaceful assembly' protests. We gotta believe our lying eyes sometimes, might as well start now.
GAAnd yet no one, from the President on down, can be bothered to even make a statement, let alone enforce the laws.
There are times I've wondered about the SCOTUS itself, as it's decisions seemed based more on politics than anything else, but this takes the cake. Clear and obvious illegal action with zero response from any Democrat.
More and more I fear for our country; when the laws only apply to one political group we have a major problem.
Surely the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution?
Protesting outside a home is a fundamental right? Maybe you do not like peace and quiet at the end of the day but others do.
Well, many right-wing Americans are always harking on how superior America is to the rest of the world because according them, Americans have such fundamental rights that the rest of the world doesn’t have; but when those freedoms of speech and self-expression, including (under the American Constitution) the right to peacefully protest are used to express views and opinions that they don’t like then those same right-wing Americans soon shout foul play. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Short answer: Protesting outside a home is not a fundamental right.
Short answer: It’s political because (unlike the UK) in America the Supreme Court judges are political; and thus, under the First Amendment of the American Constitution you have the right to assemble and express your views through protest. In the USA the Supreme Court Judges are NOT private citizens, they are public figures.
Só you think politicians have no right of privacy?
As they say: “if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen” a phase that was popularized by USA President Harry Truman, who was in office from 1945-1953.
It is good to hear you admit that Supreme Court justices have no right tô privacy or even sleep.
And it's good to hear that you think people don't have a right to peacefully protest; even when it's a fundamental right in the Constitution.
There is a huge difference in a peaceful protest and an unlawful riot outside a persons home. It seems like you are supporting the second option.
Except the protests in question are NOT riots, they are peaceful protests.
My apologies, I did not realize you were there.
Well, if you read wilderness's comment below he states "...so far peaceful...".
I think is a press source you trust
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … e-illegal/
Yeah DrMark1961, it may well be illegal, but that is for the Courts to decide.
Besides, wining basic human rights, freedoms and liberty having never been achieved through purely peaceful lawful means; over the centuries, throughout the world, the power struggles to win those rights have always come at the cost of spilt blood e.g. the French Revolution in the late 18th century, the suffragettes in the early 20th century, the Irish civil war in the 1920’s, and the bitter struggle in Britain to legalise Trade Unions, which was achieved in 1871 – That’s why the official flag of the British Labour Party (the political wing of the Trade Unions) is red e.g. to symbolise the blood split during the struggle for basic workers’ rights in Britain.
"The Red Flag" - Anthem of The British Labour Party https://youtu.be/sHoyoKgRq5U
Getting back to the point in question and the article in your link; to quote from the article:-
“The tension reflects an increasing politicization of the court — both due to the court’s own actions (in some cases) and how it has been increasingly treated by politicians. The ideal has long been that judges should be insulated from politics. But Americans increasingly view the court as effectively another political branch of government” e.g. because of the lack of ‘Separation of Powers’
And
“The legality of the protests is certainly important. Advocates for abortion rights might argue that, given the stakes and even if illegal, the protests are justified as a form of civil disobedience.”
In Britain in 1990 the British Conservative (right-wing) Government tried to introduce a ‘poll tax’ for a 2nd time. The first time, in 1381, when the King tried to introduce a poll tax in England the peasants revolted and the tax was scrapped. In 1990 when the Government tried to introduce the poll tax, the British people protested, not always peacefully, and rioted, and about 30% of the British public refused to pay the tax (Civil Disobedience). Consequently our Prime Minister resigned and the tax was abolished. Now if people stuck to the law and just demonstrated peacefully the poll tax would not have been abolished."The ends justifies the means" Not a concept I would agree with outside of an actual civil war.
Yep wilderness; in normal peaceful times, when everything is hunky-dory, it’s fine to follow the rules. But when issues are controversial, and freedom of expression is stifled or ignored by the ‘Authorities’, frustration will overspill into violence. So yes, while the ends my not always justify the means, rash action is not just restricted to just civil wars, there are times when it can be justified in peace time e.g. that’s how Suffragettes and other movements won us our rights. If we all always followed the rules laid out by Authority then we’d all be living under draconian governments.
Do people across the pond have the right to intimidate or influence judges in a trial? True, these protests (so far peaceful, but how many large protests stay that way?) are in a residential area, but more important they are designed and intended to sway judges in their appointed task of applying law.
Do the mobs enforce your laws, according to the law, or do judges? Does it seem superior that mob rule takes priority over judges?Across the pond in the UK it is different in that our 12 Supreme Court Judges are apolitical in the position they hold e.g. new appointees are selected by an ‘Independent’ body (independent of the Government) and politics isn’t a requirement in the selection process; so the politics of the Supreme Court Judges is a private personal matter between the judge and the ballot box.
More importantly the UK follows the standard democratic model of ‘Separation of Powers’ very similar a lot of countries around the world, including South Africa e.g. the Separation of Powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature; in the USA there is not the Separation of Powers between the Juridical and Executive; which is the source of the current problem e.g. why the six Republican (right-wing) judges are being political by supporting controversial extreme right-wing policies and thus target for those that oppose those policies.
So in short, what I see is the USA Supreme Court Judges exercising an abuse of power for political gain.
What is the Separation of Powers? https://youtu.be/_882Xztbh5Q
So the short answer is that people do not protest against Supreme Court Judges in the UK because our Judges are apolitical, and their role isn’t to change the law, but to interpret the law when clarity is needed e.g. the final arbitrator on understanding the British unwritten Constitution.
In this case in the USA, if I understand correct, it’s 6 Republican Judges intending to overturn a juridical decision made on abortion over 50 years ago; which in my mind the actions by the six judges is nothing other than political. In the UK if the Government doesn’t like juridical law then it can only be changed by Legislative law, which is easier said than done.
As regards peaceful protests in residential areas e.g. outside a politician’s private home; then in the UK the ‘Right to Protest’ is protected by the ‘European Convention of Human Rights’ a document that is not dissimilar in practice to the ‘Amendments’ in your Constitution.
Although protests outside politicians private homes are rare in the UK, just as they are rare in most places, including the USA, it does happen; a couple of incidences in recent years being:-
• In July 2018, anti-Brexit campaigners protested outside the private home of the UK Government’s Foreign Secretary’s house.
• In July 2021 hundreds of anti-lockdown protestors in Wales during the pandemic peacefully protested outside the private home of the Welsh ‘Frist Minister’ (Prime Minister of Wales in the Welsh Government). https://youtu.be/eb8Qq3Ar83MIt is unfortunate and sad that some of our judges render verdicts based on their political or moral bias, but it is a fact of life that most people are biased and many cannot separate that bias from their job.
But that does not answer the question on whether you approve of protests to influence or intimidate the judges in any case, not just this one.
You may think that our SCOTUS will render a judgement solely from a political viewpoint, but I rather doubt that you (or I) are competent to make that call. Not being a student of our constitution you (nor I) will have a competent understanding of the reasoning those judges will present.
As I look back over the past verdict in question, it does seem to me that it was perhaps made from a political bias; that the verdict was spun to sound like sound law but likely was not. If that is the case then there was, and is, a strong case to negate the prior verdict - something completely, 100% in line with their job as a judge. Protests or not, bias or not, will of the people or not, those judges are tasked with interpreting law, not simply going with the popular political winds.Wilderness; where you say:-
“It is unfortunate and sad that some of our judges render verdicts based on their political or moral bias, but it is a fact of life that most people are biased and many cannot separate that bias from their job.”
That’s why we have a ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Juridical and the Executive in the UK, and why in the UK the Supreme Court Judges are NOT picked because of their politics. It’s why in the UK a Supreme Court Judge’s politics is personal and private between that judge and the ballot box’; specifically to make the Supreme Court in the UK apolitical, just like the civil service in the UK is apolitical.
And that’s the failing of the USA system is that there is no ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Juridical and the Executive e.g. the Judges are chosen by the President based on their politics; thus although I don’t think your SCOTUS will render a judgement solely from a political viewpoint, all too often politics will influence the decision (abuse of powers).
Correct, even though I studied law at college I wouldn’t be competent enough to understand the reasoning of Supreme Court Judges in the UK excepting for the fact that in any case they decide their reasoning for their decision is published in full and in summery; so that even a layperson (if they read just the summery) can read the Judgement and get some understanding of the reasoning for the decision. For example below is the link to the full Supreme Court’s Judgment (25 pages) in 2019 when they found Boris Johnson (our Conservative Prime Minister) acted unlawfully when he tried to shut Parliament down for 5 weeks in an attempt to use Executive powers to bypass Parliament in order to railroad laws through that Parliament was resisting. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ … dgment.pdf
Yeah, maybe the original ruling in the USA Courts was or was not made on political motive; but certainly the current action is politically motivated – there is little doubt of that. Besides, regardless to how laws are made, once made they become law until changed; and in this case the 6 Republican Supreme Court Judges are not just making a judgment, they are intent on changing the law based on politics. If the original judgement is unsound (which I doubt) then democratically it should be up to the democratically elected Executive to seek to change the law, not the Republican Judges in the Supreme Court.
In answer to your question “But that does not answer the question on whether you approve of protests to influence or intimidate the judges in any case, not just this one.”
No I do not approve of protests to influence or intimidate the judges in any case; but neither do I approve of Judges acting politically – which is why I support the principle of the ‘Separation of Powers’ and why I support politics not being a factor in the selection process of Judges, as its done in the UK and many countries around the world.
However, if Judges do act politically (as they do in the USA on occasions) then I do support some meaningful means of redress (pushback) when judges are making controversial decisions e.g. protests; as they say “All’s fair in Love and War”."but certainly the current action is politically motivated – there is little doubt of that. "
Two entities are fighting it out in court over the constitutionality of actions in one state. That court fight ended up in the Supreme Court. How is that case, from the viewpoint of the judges, political? How is it that they hear a case, as required of them, and they are therefore political? To simply assume that any verdict is politically motivated doesn't seem reasonable in spite of the massive political uprising going on - to make that assumption one must also assume that the judges are dishonest, don't understand what their job is and don't care. Particularly when the assumed verdict is contrary to your own bias, isn't it unreasonable to simply assume they acted from politics and bias?
But there is another factor that has been made political as well. Very generally speaking, liberal citizens appear to feel that our constitution is a "living document", subject to change at any political whim. Conservatives feel the opposite; that it is set in stone unless changed in the manner outlined in the Constitution. In that manner, I suppose each judge is always biased as each one will have their own opinion on that matter. Each one will decide for themselves if the law can be changed by the court or can only be interpreted to their best of their ability.
So yes, each judge is politically biased in that regard.Each one will decide for themselves if the law can be changed by the court or can be interpreted tomthe best of their ability.
Just to clarify, Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) was a law that was changed with the 1954 with the landmark ruling outlawing separate but equal facilities. Was not that interpretation of "making law" on the basis of the Constitution's tenets, 14th Amendment (equal treatment before the law).
With Roe vs Wade, now, conservatives say that it was a bad law.
I say that neither side is free of political bias in its interpretation, a conservative one is no better than a liberal one in that sense. Being "set in stone" depends upon your interpretation and point of view.I would not see it that way. "Equal but separate" is not equal, never has been. Instead it was a political fiction; a method of doing an end run around the 14th amendment.
It is also possible that RvW was much the same; a method of producing a politically palatable compromise around the law. If so it perhaps needs correction, although I can also see my way to accepting it as law because we have done so for 50 years. Or maybe that's only MY way of doing that end run.
Either way, it is my opinion that liberals are much more likely to support that "end run" with their "interpretations" of the law. Conservatives are much more likely to be constitutionalists, regard that document as the ultimate law and not to be tampered with according to the political winds of the time.
So it comes down to the basic question of who is to make the laws? Judges operating from the courtroom or legislators supposedly debating the needs and desires of the people being ruled by that law. IMO it is not the judge."Equal but not separate was a fiction and an endrun around the 14th Amendment"
Well in 1896, 8 of the 9 jurors on the Supreme Court considered it viable. It was a conservative position giving into the concept of states rights. While, it was wrong, it was politically palatable.
Undoing Roe vs Wade may be now be just another politically palatable manner of addressing the issue today.
Putting yourself in the minds of 18th century men is always subjective at best. Conservatives like to say that their opinions would be based on what they believed 18th Century men would opine in a 21st Century world. I would say that such extrapolation is specious at best. The Constitution does not nor cannot touch on all areas of life, then and especially now, nearly 250 years into the future.
Can anyone with any accuracy really interpret what the framers intended and what they would do in any situation? It is all just reduced to whose and which politics regardless of Conservatives saying that their approach is of greater purityDid we really have 8 of 9 judges as conservative? Or do you say that only because you disagree with their conclusion?
I doubt that undoing RvW is politically based. I say that because every report I see indicates that a large majority approves of it (the original RvW, that is).
I agree that putting ourselves into the mindset of 18th century men is difficult to impossible. Nevertheless, it is what we have to work with...either that or just make legal judgements based on the politics of the time. Something I would not like to see as that removes our elected officials from the loop and leaves the construction of new laws up to just 9 appointed people.
Do you find it just a little strange that when a SCOTUS decision conflicts with our own politics it is obviously politically based, while when we like that decision it is obviously based on Constitutional law?"Did we really have 8 of 9 judges as conservative? Or do you say that only because you disagree with their conclusion?"
Those were the number of justices that rendered what you would call a conservative decision, supporting states rights and leaving elected officials and legislators from then clearly bigoted Southern legislatures in charge. But, was it correct?
That court's consideration of the 14th Amendment was obviously quite narrow in scope. When you realize that when it was ratified, just after the Civil War with Congress under the control of the Radical Republican faction, it would have seemed to me that it was created to insure the equal rights of all American citizens in a broad way, not narrow.
We do have to work with 18th century mindsets, an impossible task that either side realistically can only grope for. You could argue either way as to how they would resolve issues confronting us today if they were faced with reality of drastic change from powdered wigs and knee breeches.
We all tend to find virtue in the Courts and their decisions when it reflects our views rather than be contrary to them. That comes from both or either side."We all tend to find virtue in the Courts and their decisions when it reflects our views rather than be contrary to them. That comes from both or either side."
Very true. Independent judges seem like the best thing, as Nathanville points out there in the UK, although I am not sure how well that works considering the way things are going there.
Here in Brazil we have a supreme court packed with socialist justices. They released the socialist president from prison, where he was being held for corruption, and have now expunged his conviction records so that he is able to run for the office of president again. Would we be better off if we had a supreme court that was more independent? I think so, but the party that holds the power of the supreme court at the moment would not agree.
I think it is the same way in the US.Thanks, DeMark
The problem is that knawing fear that the Court is becoming politicized.
It may be impossible for the human organism to ever be completely objective in evaluating anything.
The procedure may need to remove partisan aspects to the appointments and confirmation.
Wilderness, I am looking at things from a British perspective, so there are points you raise that are a little alien to the British culture, and therefore I do naturally see things differently to an American.
From a British perspective, the fact that you don’t have a proper ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Legislature and the Juridical makes all the difference, because even if the Judges are not being political as you claim, they come across as being political; which is almost as bad.
However, to be political doesn’t mean that one is dishonest, nor that one doesn’t understand what their job is or don’t care; politics is an essential part of democracy. However, for Judges to be political in Public Office is bad; and that’s why apart from the USA most countries have a proper ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Juridical and Executive to better ensure that judgments are not political.
Your last point is an interesting one; whether a Constitution should be ‘set in stone’ or a living breathing document. The British Constitution which dates back to 1215 and is unwritten, is a living and breathing document; and in my view all the better for it, because it evolves with the times. Whereas when a Constitution is ‘set in stone’ there is a danger of it becoming a dinosaur around the neck of society e.g. outdated.
As it comes with the job, our leaders have to expect a certain amount of being in the public eye along with the scrutiny that brings. While the laws were written to protect public officials from harassment in their private space, the Right would easily "spin" this as a way to discourage any protests over their policies.
Republicans and the Right are the most resistant to protest as glaring evidence of the levels of dissent regarding their policy positions. The influence protest has on the opinions of others, who they need to keep to in the dark as to their true nature of their policy positions, is what they fear. They need to keep the feathers unruffled to ensure that they receive continued support at the ballot box.
That is why protests must continue and be magnified.Yep, that makes sense; and thanks for your feedback.
Related Discussions
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 10 months ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 17
Enforcing Bad Laws
by ptosis 6 years ago
The Fallacy of "Enforcement First" is that "only following orders", aka the Nuremberg defense, cannot be used to lesson punishment for knowingly complying with an 'blatantly illegal order'.“Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.” - Edmund Burke 1775Strong Rule...
- 26
BLM Documentary by Candace Owens. “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold“
by Readmikenow 5 months ago
"The documentary named “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold“ depicts that the media created a narrative that explained a summer of global riots and helped the rise of Black Lives Matter and how they used the turmoil to raise a whooping amount of 90 million dollars after the death of George Floyd.George...
- 121
What do Trump protesters think they'll gain now - the election is over and Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
What do Trump protesters think they'll gain now - the election is over and Trump won?Post-election riots, violence, and demonstrations are occurring in Liberal cities across the nation. Illegal immigrants waving Mexican flags are demanding unearned American rights. The media is ginning...
- 44
Guiliani either has a big mouth or the goal is GOP nominee 2016
by Credence2 8 years ago
As my stomach turn listening to former NY Mayor, Guiliani blame the President and the current mayor for the deaths of the 2 officers in Bed-Sty, New York City, I had reason to pause. I think for myself and the insinuation that all the people involved in PEACEFUL protests were incited beyond reason...
- 555
It's NOT ONLY a Woman's Right to Choose that is Disappearing ...
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...