Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Interdasting.  Since the protest was against the law, they now have someone to prosecute.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1507&num=0&edition=prelim

First rule of breaking the law is STFU.

Quote

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty

Nope.

They didn't interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice and literally no one believes this will influence Kavanaugh to be more favorable to the protestor's side.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

Nope.

They didn't interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice and literally no one believes this will influence Kavanaugh to be more favorable to the protestor's side.

Then why are they there?  Just to call him a dick?  They chant "we will not go back" over and over.  Is that not an attempt at influence?

Or "resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"?

This looks like the catchall for this.

Look.  Doxxing is wrong.  And going to the personal residences of people in government (or anyone else) is wrong.  I don't care who does it, right or left.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ag with kids said:

Then why are they there?  Just to call him a dick?  They chant "we will not go back" over and over.  Is that not an attempt at influence?

Or "resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"?

This looks like the catchall for this.

Look.  Doxxing is wrong.  And going to the personal residences of people in government (or anyone else) is wrong.  I don't care who does it, right or left.

Or"? Catchall for this?

Do you not know the definition of the word "or"? 

Or means they would have to have done at least one of those things, but they didn't do any of them. 

The post I responded to had nothing to do with whether it was wrong. It's quoted right there at the top of the screen if you'd like to re-read it. You said the neighbors could be prosecuted, because this is against the law.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Breaking the law isn't important?

Going to be hard to prove they are doing anything other than exercising freedom of assembly. Clearly they have no intent to interfere with his ability to administer justice. As far as whether they are trying to influence him in any way, that clause seems in direct conflict with the first amendment so good luck prosecuting it successfully

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Then why are they there?  Just to call him a dick?  They chant "we will not go back" over and over.  Is that not an attempt at influence?

Or "resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"?

This looks like the catchall for this.

Look.  Doxxing is wrong.  And going to the personal residences of people in government (or anyone else) is wrong.  I don't care who does it, right or left.

They are exercising their first amendment rights. Fuck that piece of shit

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pods said:

Or"? Catchall for this?

Do you not know the definition of the word "or"? 

Or means they would have to have done at least one of those things, but they didn't do any of them. 

The post I responded to had nothing to do with whether it was wrong. It's quoted right there at the top of the screen if you'd like to re-read it. You said the neighbors could be prosecuted, because this is against the law.

 

Or "resorts to any other demonstration"...

They don't have to do any of those things.  That's the catchall.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Going to be hard to prove they are doing anything other than exercising freedom of assembly. Clearly they have no intent to interfere with his ability to administer justice. As far as whether they are trying to influence him in any way, that clause seems in direct conflict with the first amendment so good luck prosecuting it successfully

Read the statute.

"resorts to any other demonstration"

I'm glad y'all are back to supporting freedom of speech though.  Elon will be happy with y'alls conversion.

  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they broke the law, arrest them all

At the same time, if you use your position of power to take peoples rights away, you shouldn’t assume you or your family are safe. Humanity and it’s 300,000 years of existence prove otherwise 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Then why are they there?  Just to call him a dick?  They chant "we will not go back" over and over.  Is that not an attempt at influence?

Or "resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"?

This looks like the catchall for this.

Look.  Doxxing is wrong.  And going to the personal residences of people in government (or anyone else) is wrong.  I don't care who does it, right or left.

I'm not sure how morally wrong it is, as long as they aren't threatening or blocking ingress or egress or something else at least a little bit dangerous.

I assume that you are aware that just because it's written in a law doesn't mean that the law doesn't violate the First Amendment.  That one fairly screams violation of the First Amendment.  The intent part might, just barely, get it by.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure how morally wrong it is, as long as they aren't threatening or blocking ingress or egress or something else at least a little bit dangerous.

I assume that you are aware that just because it's written in a law doesn't mean that the law doesn't violate the First Amendment.  That one fairly screams violation of the First Amendment.  The intent part might, just barely, get it by.

Yes.  But, right now it is the law, right?

But, do we really want this to be the standard?

What if the final opinion came out and they DON'T overturn RvW.

Would you support anti-abortion advocates going to the houses of the Justices that upheld it?

You know as well as I do that what they're doing right now is threatening. And it would be threatening if anti-abortion people showed up at the justices that upheld RvW.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I assume you also support the arrest of every politician that supported the insurrection? You know, law and order?

Anyone that actually broke the law, yes I do.

But...then, you must also be on my side, right?  If these protesters broke the law (which according to the statute they did) you want them arrested too, right?

You know, law and order...

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  But, right now it is the law, right?

But, do we really want this to be the standard?

What if the final opinion came out and they DON'T overturn RvW.

Would you support anti-abortion advocates going to the houses of the Justices that upheld it?

You know as well as I do that what they're doing right now is threatening. And it would be threatening if anti-abortion people showed up at the justices that upheld RvW.

Threatening like following nurse home from work? Threatening like shooting an abortion doctor in church? GTFO with your indignation about a protest and citations to obstruction of justice laws. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Threatening like following nurse home from work? Threatening like shooting an abortion doctor in church? GTFO with your indignation about a protest and citations to obstruction of justice laws. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers 

Yes.  Those are all fucking wrong.

Why do want the law to only work one direction?  I don't.  I want ALL people that do illegal things to suffer consequences.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Read the statute.

"resorts to any other demonstration"

I'm glad y'all are back to supporting freedom of speech though.  Elon will be happy with y'alls conversion.

Quote

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

So your contention is that all protests near any federal courthouse, including the Supreme Court, are illegal? This statute doesn't distinguish houses from courthouses. 

Setting aside that this would be blatantly unconstitutional, there is no Oxford comma in front of the clause you are citing, despite the Oxford comma being used throughout the remainder of the text. The clause you are citing is dependent on the "with such intent" clause in front and isn't intended to be a stand-alone clause forbidding all protests near all federal courthouses. That would be a ludicrous take. 

Quote

or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration

There was no intent to interfere with, obstruct, impede, or influence any judge. You don't have to like it, but it was legal. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Read the statute.

"resorts to any other demonstration"

I'm glad y'all are back to supporting freedom of speech though.  Elon will be happy with y'alls conversion.

Y’all? Fuck you you don’t know me

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  Those are all fucking wrong.

Why do want the law to only work one direction?  I don't.  I want ALL people that do illegal things to suffer consequences.

Yeah you’re all over that January 6 thread calling for prosecutions right?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took me awhile to find it but this 2005 post on Craigslist sums my view up nicely:


“Pro-life republicans, while they claim to oppose abortion, create the very environment in which demand for the practice thrives. Pro-choice democrats seek to create an environment in which no one needs an abortion in the first place, while ensuring the practice is safe, sanitary, and performed by a licensed medical practitioner as we, as a society, are still in a transitional period. By eliminating the demand for abortion, practitioners will lose the ability to practice. The supply will cease to exist and the clinic will close. Which seems much more civil than blowing it up or shooting some doctors. “


https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/min/86638741.html

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess this happened yesterday. Pro-choice group shows up to protest a pro-life group that first meets regularly at a church before going down to protest at an abortion clinic.

First tweet captures comments by a pro-life guy wearing a NYFD jacket and America First cap.

 

Thread below provides some context:

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Guess this happened yesterday. Pro-choice group shows up to protest a pro-life group that first meets regularly at a church before going down to protest at an abortion clinic.

First tweet captures comments by a pro-life guy wearing a NYFD jacket and America First cap.

 

Thread below provides some context:

 

What a bunch of cunts.  How many of these assholes were decrying vaccine and mask mandates, bleating, “my body, my choice.”  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what so many people don't get.  Being pro-choice does not mean you are pro-abortion.  It just means that the choice rests with the woman, her doctor, and anyone else she chooses to include in the process.  Pro-choice is pro-woman.  Trying to force your beliefs on others is as anti-American as you can get.  If you support this bullshit that is happening now, you are a misogynist and anti-American.  You can absolutely go fuck yourself.  

Nuanced thought is in dire straits. People can’t comprehend that one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. When I bring this up in discussion I’m met with silence.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Woland said:


Nuanced thought is in dire straits. People can’t comprehend that one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. When I bring this up in discussion I’m met with silence.

This is absolutely correct.  This has been happening for ages.  You see it in a number of different ways.  All part of the dumbing down of the populace.  

Look, we all know a number of Americans weren't exactly the sharpest tools in shed, but it has gotten demonstrably worse since the internet and social media.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  Those are all fucking wrong.

Why do want the law to only work one direction?  I don't.  I want ALL people that do illegal things to suffer consequences.

You’re embarrassing yourself if you think the statute you cited will be the reason for a single arrest or indictment of protesters outside Kavanaugh’s. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pods said:

Nope.

They didn't interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice and literally no one believes this will influence Kavanaugh to be more favorable to the protestor's side.

This is literally fucking retarded. And I'm pro-abortion. 

"we don't think what we are doing will work, therefore we are not breaking the law"

Edited by StruggleBus
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

This is literally fucking retarded. And I'm pro-abortion. 

I wonder why certain people are so worried about the etiquette of protesters, but only when those protesters are protesting certain things. I really wonder why that is. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  But, right now it is the law, right?

But, do we really want this to be the standard?

What if the final opinion came out and they DON'T overturn RvW.

Would you support anti-abortion advocates going to the houses of the Justices that upheld it?

You know as well as I do that what they're doing right now is threatening. And it would be threatening if anti-abortion people showed up at the justices that upheld RvW.

Cry more

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-abortion activists have murdered abortion providers in churches, burned down abortion clinics, harassed and intimidated women for getting abortions, and bombed the fucking Olympics. Anyone complaining about pro-choice activists peacefully protesting in the street outside a justice’s home can get 100% fucked.

But you see antifa once threw a smoothie at Andy Ngo… so….
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bolverk said:

Guess this happened yesterday. Pro-choice group shows up to protest a pro-life group that first meets regularly at a church before going down to protest at an abortion clinic.

First tweet captures comments by a pro-life guy wearing a NYFD jacket and America First cap.

 

Thread below provides some context:

 

If Dems have an ounce of sense they’ll take that video from the first tweet and combine it with a video of Kavanaugh threatening revenge during his nomination and run it a million times all over the country.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If Dems have an ounce of sense they’ll take that video from the first tweet and combine it with a video of Kavanaugh threatening revenge during his nomination and run it a million times all over the country.

They don't and they won't.  When we devolve into a fascist state, the Dems will be almost as culpable as the Reps, due to their weakness and stupidity. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...