“Everyone did what was right in their own eyes…” -Book of Judges
Remember when Bill Clinton bemoaned the “politics of personal destruction?” Good times. The snarling Left long ago declared conservatives in their private lives were fair game. And they’re at it again.
A leftist group posted on its website apparent home addresses of six conservative Supreme Court justices and is planning “walk-by” protests next week at their residences in the wake of the leaked draft from the high court that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
The group is called [not linking to them] — named after late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and announced a “Walk-By Wednesday” protest set for May 11 “at the homes of the six extremist justices, three in Virginia and three in Maryland. If you’d like to join or lead a peaceful protest, let us know.”
In connection to the planned protest, the site includes a map naming the six justices — John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — as well as links to what it says are the home addresses of the “Christian fundamentalist” jurists.
CatholicVote called on Biden to speak out against this sort of tactic.
President Biden must immediately and forcibly condemn these domestic terrorist threats. Anti-Catholic zealots are plotting to intimidate and harass Catholics across the country, along with justices and their families. This country was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The President of the United States must stand up for both.
The organization also pointed to this incident reported by the CNA in Colorado.
A Catholic parish church in Boulder, Colorado was defaced with pro-abortion slogans the evening of May 3, marking the second time in less than a year that the parish has been targeted with pro-abortion graffiti.
Photos shared with CNA by the Archdiocese of Denver show vulgar slogans spray painted on the church, such as “F* You,” “F the Church, F** the State,” as well as numerous inscriptions of “My Body My Choice,” “You don’t speak 4 God,” and a symbol that appears to be an “A” signifying “anarchy.” Red paint was also used to deface a statue on the parish grounds.
The graffiti covers the church doors, several outer walls, and a white pickup truck in the parking lot. At least one of the outer windows of the church appears to be shattered.
Why is abortion, of all things, the highest priority for at least the activist Left? Why is it the one issue where absolutely no separation from the herd is permissible? Why does this issue fill people with so much hate that they erupt in vandalism and profanity against a church? Nobody takes to the streets and breaks windows over the Build Back Better bill saying “Bleep you, I want my bridge!”
I have my theory that I’ll expand on in time, but what’s yours?
I understand why some women feel so passionate about their ability to kill their offspring. It’s scary to know there is behaviors (sexual intercourse) which they wish to engage in that have consequences they fear, and for which they would have no recourse.
The only 100% sure alternative is to restrict their wanton desires to men who they have weighed, measured and found acceptable and who have made a legal and moral commitment to them: no more midnight hook-ups after the bar.
That’s tough. No wonder they hate God.
Blade is correct.
There were several Tik Tokkers that bemoaned the “devastation of hookups” if R v W were overturned.
Post Dobbs, abortions will continue to be widely available across the US.
I don’t think that what is happening is that pro-abortion women are looking for a license to be a slut. I think that there is something psychological going on, that women have been taught to view their status as child bearers to be a mark of inferiority. This is a strictly modern phenomenon.
The government, then, with Roe V Wade in 1973, erased the stain of inferiority from them. With Dobbs the government is returning to marking woman as inferior.
women have been taught to view their status as child bearers to be a mark of inferiority
I think there is some of that, too. It’s a shame, but not an unsolvable problem. We need to start putting mom back on the pedestal and reminding everyone that dad is key to supporting mom.
First, we tak in millions of military age men from narco-terrorist countries.
Second, we adopt judicial intimidation tactics used by narco-terrorists.
Anyone want to hazard a guess what Third will be?
Is the protest uniform going to be Handmaiden costumes or Pussy Hats?
Asking for a friend.
abortion is a tool for malthusians. take it away and they will have to work harder to make your life even more miserable.
the only terroristic threats worth condemning are the made-up ones, like insurrekshun™. as for real ones, meh
White House Resists Condemning Protesters Descending on Supreme Court Justices’ Homes
no idea what triggered moderation
This is the law of the land in Virginia. Anyone care to say it will be upheld? Bueller? Bueller?
Police can arrest protesters at Supreme Court Justices’ homes in Virginia. Virginia Code 18.2-419:
Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Each day on which a violation of this section occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
this moderation thing is out of control, paging Mitch…
I have a right to speak freely on political matters. It’s guaranteed by the Constitution.
The purpose of my having that right is so I can influence decisions made by policy makers. I can write pamphlets, make speeches, wave placards, shout outside buildings. Nobody questions those free speech rights.
But after the policy makers have made their decision and the policy has been adopted, the situation changes. When a lawsuit has been filed to decide a case arising under that policy, should I still have the right to influence the judges? Or should they decide cases on the merits of the case, free from political influences and free from my attempts to influence the outcome?
If judges are not persuaded by my political speech, can I move on to threatening their children? Is that a legitimate way to influence their judgment? If not, why not? It’s routinely done in other countries. I’m told that speech is violence and violence is speech in other contexts; why can’t I attempt to gain my desired outcome by threats and intimidation?
If threatening judges’ children doesn’t work, can I move on to acts of physical violence such as burning down their houses or bombing their offices? Speech includes gestures – aren’t these simply very persuasive gestures?
If that stilll doesn’t work, perhaps the judges need to be removed from office and replaced with better judges. The impeachment process is tiresome and slow but rope is plentiful and there are lampposts on every corner. Is self-help removal an acceptable means to achieve my political ends?
While the policy decision is being made by the Legislative Branch, free speech to influence the outcome makes sense. When a lawsuit is pending in the Judicial Branch, does it still make sense? And if so, where, exactly, do we draw the line?
I saw a LOL video of Elizabeth Warren blaring on about how polling shows that 69% of Americans want to uphold Roe V Wade. Don’t have any idea if this true, but I do know that a similar percentage of Americans believe that illegal aliens should be deported when detected.
Warren, of course, is against deporting illegal immigrants.
So Warren is a ridiculous person.
The failure of law makers has led them to pass the buck and leave the heavy decisions to a politicized judiciary which at its apex has a conservative-dominated court that is morphing into a berobed legislature that cannot be unseated. America is looking more like a Margret Atwood novel.
You leftists can’t pass laws because they’re too unpopular, so you instead used that judiciary that you politicized strongly to the left. Abracadabra! all of the its decisions were “correct”. Then the non-left figured out the rules of this new game of yours and worked to create a conservative-dominated court and now we have a “berobed legislature”. Funny the way what goes around comes around.
All that the Supreme Court is doing, if it strikes down current law on abortion, is that individual states would have to decide on when abortion can take place! This is far more democratic than imposing one rule on all of them… 🙄
^^ Trying to retreat in order.
FYI, as we saw in Afghanistan, progressives aren’t good at that.
The balancing of competing rights is a matter for which elected legislators have a greater mandate than do judges. That is often awkward, but it is democracy.
“FYI, as we saw in Afghanistan, progressives aren’t good at that.”
When Afghanistan’s economy is basically foreign aid and illegal drug manufacturing, we could have been there for a century, and the results would have been the same.
Emery on May 7, 2022 at 8:23 pm said:
The balancing of competing rights is a matter for which elected legislators have a greater mandate than do judges. That is often awkward, but it is democracy.
But this is always what happens. It is called politics. We don’t have great political debates about whether murder should be illegal, because almost everyone agrees that murder should be illegal. Instead we get political debates about the areas of most disagreement, like the rights of children in the womb against the rights of the pregnant women. This is what the system looks like when it works, it will always be like this.
So you need to be able to make serious arguments based on reason. You can’t just say “well, the scientists say this” when the authority of the scientists is held in wide disregard. First debate and argue why the opinion of the scientists should be be given weight. Jesus there was a time, not too long ago, when scientists endorsed eugenics because eugenics was popular with the ruling class.