3 ms·

Are you actually serious? The protestors were breaking the law: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/protesting-at-justices-homes-is-illegal-what-is-biden-doing-about-it

Are you actually serious? The protestors were breaking the law: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/protesting-at-justices-homes-is-illegal-what-is-biden-doing-about-it/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/protesting-at-justices-homes-is-i... "it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,”" What they were doing clearly amounts to intimidating the justices, including by putting them in harm's way by announcing their home addresses on the Internet. https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." What they are doing is illegally engaging in rebellion against authority. It is insurrection. I also can't believe you are calling this "protesting loudly": "The DHS agent reportedly told the diocese that “large groups with cells nationwide have already been discovered ‘casing’ parishes, including here in California.”" What they are planning to do, is, in fact domestic terrorism. Your condemnation of the right while supporting the terrorism of the left is very revealing. At least people on the right are willing to condemn both. We at least have principles.

generj 4y ago
Principles such as refusing to condemn the former President’s coup apparently. Or even watch evidence about it. I have condemned terrorism on the left, for example eco-terrorism (which seems to have thankfully died off). I didn’t read the DOJ notice, but it is important to note their job is to take the worst case scenario and plan for it. I haven’t seen widespread attacks on parishes and don’t honestly believe they will occur. Some insane portion of people on both sides issue a lot of dumb threats but only rarely are those threats executed on. If they do I will of course condemn them. But I will always place more emphasis on events which have actually happened, not just hypotheticals. For example the recent troubling incident in Idaho where a few dozen men with guns were headed to attack a parade. Multiple studies have shown that 90+% of domestic terrorism is linked to the right wing. I do not support harassing judges, but I hardly think that rises to any level of insurrection. They weren’t attacking the authority of the government or even of the justice in question. I doubt most of them even intended or expected her to change her mind. Even if you are right and they were attempting to unduly influence her, that wouldn’t be undermining her authority but relying upon it. It reflects the current reality - justices have become partisan so people believe they are entitled to treat them as any other partisan politicians, who as elected officials are required to be accountable to the people. We should prevent that. Justices not acting as naked partisans would help, as would both parties compromising and writing laws again so fewer things of import are decided by unelected justices. Controversial decisions should allow both parties share some of the blame, because any good society requires controversial decisions to be effective. By the way, if protesting outside a justices home is insurrection, then the right is guilty again - they protested outside numerous state election officials homes to attempt to pressure them to violate their oaths to keep Trump in power. They also issued numerous death threats, which thankfully didn’t happen. And published home addresses. We need to step down from this level of rancor and return to democracy in action. The broad public is in agreement on most things and supports reasonable compromises, but our governmental structure has stopped making them viable.
generj 4y ago
I read through the DOJ notice and it warns of multiple targets including abortion clinics. After the leaked draft, they say arson attacks occurred to pregnancy resource centers. Another area of concern is violence being directed against “First Amendment protected events” e.g. protests. Then finally some vandalism at “religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion.” So unfortunately they seem to say violence is more likely from all sides as the result of this. Even with that, arson attacks are more serious then vandalism. So to date both sides aren’t equally indulging in violence.

generj 4y ago

Principles such as refusing to condemn the former President’s coup apparently. Or even watch evidence about it. I have condemned terrorism on the left, for example eco-terrorism (which seems to have thankfully died off). I didn’t read the DOJ notice, but it is important to note their job is to take the worst case scenario and plan for it. I haven’t seen widespread attacks on parishes and don’t honestly believe they will occur. Some insane portion of people on both sides issue a lot of dumb threats but only rarely are those threats executed on. If they do I will of course condemn them. But I will always place more emphasis on events which have actually happened, not just hypotheticals. For example the recent troubling incident in Idaho where a few dozen men with guns were headed to attack a parade. Multiple studies have shown that 90+% of domestic terrorism is linked to the right wing. I do not support harassing judges, but I hardly think that rises to any level of insurrection. They weren’t attacking the authority of the government or even of the justice in question. I doubt most of them even intended or expected her to change her mind. Even if you are right and they were attempting to unduly influence her, that wouldn’t be undermining her authority but relying upon it. It reflects the current reality - justices have become partisan so people believe they are entitled to treat them as any other partisan politicians, who as elected officials are required to be accountable to the people. We should prevent that. Justices not acting as naked partisans would help, as would both parties compromising and writing laws again so fewer things of import are decided by unelected justices. Controversial decisions should allow both parties share some of the blame, because any good society requires controversial decisions to be effective. By the way, if protesting outside a justices home is insurrection, then the right is guilty again - they protested outside numerous state election officials homes to attempt to pressure them to violate their oaths to keep Trump in power. They also issued numerous death threats, which thankfully didn’t happen. And published home addresses. We need to step down from this level of rancor and return to democracy in action. The broad public is in agreement on most things and supports reasonable compromises, but our governmental structure has stopped making them viable.

generj 4y ago

I read through the DOJ notice and it warns of multiple targets including abortion clinics. After the leaked draft, they say arson attacks occurred to pregnancy resource centers. Another area of concern is violence being directed against “First Amendment protected events” e.g. protests. Then finally some vandalism at “religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion.” So unfortunately they seem to say violence is more likely from all sides as the result of this. Even with that, arson attacks are more serious then vandalism. So to date both sides aren’t equally indulging in violence.