Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

We are looking at it keef. You aren't consistent. We get it. You like some demonstrations not others. All we are asking is consistency.

---

You're right. I'm not consistent by not liking all demonstrations. I support people peacefully protesting in front of judge's houses but not KKK members protesting in front of a black person's house. You got me.

---

You really think it's ok to protest in front of a Supreme Court justice house?

---

I honestly do.

---

So attempting to sway their decisions is ok with Democrats no matter what it involves? You would have been happy if he was murdered right?

---

How do you go from supporting peaceful protest to murder? Another strawman.

---

Did you not understand the question or you just like to use the word straw man? Answer the question.

---

No, I don't support murder.

---

How good of you. So going after justices to sway their opinions is ok, but you stop at murder. That's a relief. Maybe someday we can see the same kind of activities at the liberal justices homes. Right?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

I love it when liberals start getting supportive for the rule of law. It only means one thing.

There's a Republican in their crosshairs.

Talk to me about the sworn duty of the president to uphold the law. Double down on your myopic hypocrisy.

---

First of all, they have to look up the law, even the judges.

If it's a Dem, the goal is to either find a way around the law, or make it up outta thin air since they know it won't be reported, at least more than once.

There's a reason every law office says "law practice". It means every Dem judge can make precedent, their acolytes in DC (and here evidently), will cover their ass, and tomorrow is another day.

What I really love is there are American's in jail, with no charges and no bail, which is kidnapping by the federal government, and I'm sure they support those actions. There's 10,000 to 15,000 hours of video that would possibly exculpate each person, but it's not what their interested in.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

We are looking at it keef. You aren't consistent. We get it. You like some demonstrations not others. All we are asking is consistency.

---

You're right. I'm not consistent by not liking all demonstrations. I support people peacefully protesting in front of judge's houses but not KKK members protesting in front of a black person's house. You got me.

---

You really think it's ok to protest in front of a Supreme Court justice house?

---

I honestly do.

---

So attempting to sway their decisions is ok with Democrats no matter what it involves? You would have been happy if he was murdered right?

---

How do you go from supporting peaceful protest to murder? Another strawman.

---

Did you not understand the question or you just like to use the word straw man? Answer the question.

---

No, I don't support murder.

---

You will as soon as your gov't saviors tell you to support it. I guarantee it.

Either that, or you're lying already about your support.

Marxism ALWAYS leads to murder.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

We are looking at it keef. You aren't consistent. We get it. You like some demonstrations not others. All we are asking is consistency.

---

You're right. I'm not consistent by not liking all demonstrations. I support people peacefully protesting in front of judge's houses but not KKK members protesting in front of a black person's house. You got me.

---

The black person is much safer than the Justices.

KKK are stupid, but leftists are freaking insane.

Showing up at SCOTUS would also be illegal under these circumstances

I didn't realize that because I see people protest at SCOUTS frequently, but you know the law much better than myself. Thanks for clarifying.

Someone should dox the person behind that Twitter account

Do you realize some states were so repulsed by gay marriage they made it illegal. In your form of government that would have been allowed to stay illegal.

So they decided what they thought was unreasonable and the SC shot it down. Now you want to define what is unreasonable. That's why democracy sucks.

These people need to be in prison! Without an independent judiciary, we are done.

Rockdoc said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

The republicans are almost as bad as the libs these days. The only difference is they hide their hate for this country and pretend like they are trying to save it.

---

In a way they're worse than the dems. They won't fight. They just run their mouths. The dems at least stick together. Well neither side is getting my guns so I guess I shouldn't even pay attention.

---

where the f are Liz Cheney and the other pos who were so quick to impeach D Trump multiple times - they are complicit in all this.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?

---

They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.

---

Using our own laws against us to advance their communist agenda!

They won't stop until patriots stand up and make them stop! This may not be a law but it is a fact.

Anyone who doesn't see this is a shill for the leftist scum.

I love that full quote by Benjamin Franklin which says "a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Well I'd probably cheer for a few talented snipers.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

DOJ will do nothing.

They would not have done this if Trump was president.

SCOTUS' multiple decisions to refuse to hear the cases of voter fraud and illegality in voting law changes contributed to this. So to some extent they are reaping what they sowed. I hope they learn something. I also hope they are kept safe.

---

This. They were as complicit as the MSM and the Democrats in helping steal this election.

I guess they thought that at least hearing the evidence would bring country wide "discourse".

gbaby23 said:

---

Uniparty

---

This cannot be stated enough!

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

I didn't realize that because I see people protest at SCOUTS frequently, but you know the law much better than myself. Thanks for clarifying.

---

Oh man, what are they protesting?

Some kid cheated at the pinewood derby?

Didn't like the way they were helping old ladies across the street, or preventing forest fires?

Dang

larry culpepper said:

---

Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.

---

Why did Pelosi deny SCOTUS extra security?

A bill that was passed by the senate without one single dissenting vote, she held up from getting a vote in the house.

What is going on at SCOTUS homes is an outrage. Pelosi's behavior show it for what it is, democrat intimidation tactics, and that is against the law.

This makes my blood boil. She's absolutely encouraging this.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

This makes my blood boil. She's absolutely encouraging this.

---

She was so blithe in dismissing any threats to Justices over the weekend. No hurry, we can do that on Monday.

If these loons assassinate a conservative Justice, the probability of a hot war goes very high.

1) Republicans move to block any appointee before midterms

2) Dems get crushed beyond anyone's imagination in midterms

3) Republicans hold off hearings for 2 years with a senate majority

4) Dems lose their minds and the shooting starts



Or

1) Dems effectively move to appoint someone before midterm

2) Republicans lose their minds and the shooting starts

Let this serve as a warning. Anyone post on this thread unrelated to ACB home protesting specifically, SCOTUS protests and 1st Amendment right to protest as it RELATES to SCOTUS protesting, you will get time off. If you want to debate direct democracy vs. republic, go start that topic and other topics with new threads.

They're going after her kids now.

So, basically, this is a roadmap for attacking ACB and her children...? pic.twitter.com/GAPChst5wk

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 10, 2022

We are watching in real time a breakdown in the rule of law in this country, led by an administration that like Obama, will not enforce the law against people that are doing their bidding, like ANTIFA, BLM, and the protestors at the SCOTUS houses.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So you get to say what's ok and what isn't. Very liberal of you.

---

Democracies are considered a liberal concept, and as part of the electorate, I really do get a say in what's ok and what isn't.

---

The issue is not on what is and is not a democracy, the issue is on misuse and abuse of the term liberal and liberalism.

Democrats, the DNC, progressives, "leftists" etc are NOT liberals. They do no support democracy nor democratic republics. They do not support the minorities having a voice.

Please use and apply the term according to its definition:

Definitions from Oxford Languages
liberal
/lib()rl/

1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

The encouragement and protection by the OP and their ilk are not in line with freedom of speech and other protections provided in the US Constitution as they are intended to threaten, intimidate and harass.

They are not in line with liberalism as the protests, the protestors, and their instigators in the "Democratic" party are NOT willing to respect or accept the political and social behaviors different from their own and most assuredly no open to any new ideas.

Instead, they are willing to promote violence, threats of violence, destruction of property and restrictions on the very freedoms identified in the constitution because they are unwilling and unable to go about the process to have their views and policies represented through the legislative process and/or refuse to enforce the laws established by ay abdicating their responsibilities in the executive branch.

OP and their ilk will undoubtedly celebrate the lost of life and destruction of property if it supports their socialist agenda.