A prime candidate for impeachment

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  129 comments

A  prime candidate for impeachment
“Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed.” ― Chuck Palahniuk, Lullaby

 Barack Obama once presented him as a moderate when he was hoping Mitch McConnell would put him on the Supreme Court, rather than risk a heavily favored Hillary Clinton nominating a far left activist when she became president. That little gambit failed. McConnell took a big gamble and won. However we really didn't dodge a bullet. A president Joe Biden would bring him back to be Attorney General. Little did we know, Garland's records as Justice Brennan's clerk were sealed.

 Thus far, Garland has run the DOJ along the lines of the infamous Obama wingman, Eric Holder. We all remember when Garland responded to the leftist National School Boards Association, which claimed to be threatened by parents who showed up at hearing involving what their children were being taught. Despite the lack of evidence of any danger to the school board, Garland, as we all recall ordered the FBI into action. He clearly intended to intimidate parents. 

Now we have the left in clear violation of the law protesting outside of the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Garland has now switched gears. He has no interest in protecting Supreme Court Justices the way he protected school boards.

The law:

18 U.S.C. § 1507 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1507. Picketing or parading.

"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."

One Justice left his home and moved into a motel.     What has Garland done?  Not a thing.  Where is the FBI? Nowhere to be found.

On Easter Sunday, church services were interrupted. What has Garland done?  Not a thing.  Where is the FBI? Nowhere to be found.

 Jen Psaki was given many opportunities to condemn the lawbreaking. Here is her response:

“Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”

There is no US government position?  Doesn't Psaki or Biden know about 18 U.S.C. § 1507 ?  More likely they don't care. They are getting away with it, just like they are getting away with flooding the country with illegal migrants. It will be up to the coming Republican congress.

We can only hope that we wont see the same timidity we saw the last time Republicans controlled congress



 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Grounds for impeachment: Refusal to enforce the laws of the United States.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

So all the 'pro-life protestors' outside of the Supreme Court should be prosecuted? Is that your posit? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1    2 weeks ago

You apparently didn't read 18 USC §1507

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. Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
You apparently didn't read 18 USC §1507

What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion Jeremy?

Are you trying to claim that the Supreme Court in DC does NOT qualify under that statute?

Or is your posit that 'pro-life protestors' haven't picketed that building? 

Please clarify. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion Jeremy?
Are you trying to claim that the Supreme Court in DC does NOT qualify under that statute?

That is the text of the law.  If you have a problem with it take it up with your representative.  

I did forget to add the link:

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
That is the text of the law. 

That is non-responsive Jeremy. 

If you have a problem with it take it up with your representative.  

I asked you a question based on the text of the statute that you insist I haven't read. Do you have an answer? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Nope just deflections and irrelevant and or fact free submissions.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
That is non-responsive Jeremy. 

Only because it's not the answer YOU want.  Not my problem.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

a hilarious comment coming from any supporter of the previous loser that occupied the white house.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

And for the first time in our nation's history the SCOTUS is threatening to use The Constitution to take away a right and privilege.  You should be thankful they're not showing up in camo and assault rifles.  Count your blessings.

Hell, the MAGA crowd defecated in the Capitol for lies and fraud.

Vic, your incessant whining for 'the Mar-a-Lago man' is redundant. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

No more faith in the abilities of Attorney General Merrick Garland than AG Loretta Lynch or AG Eric holder to prosecute previous administration criminals?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1    2 weeks ago

Have no idea.  Perhaps what is happening here the term--"Too Big To Fail" applies.

If the Putin Regime collapses----hard to say what the info coming out of Russia by the new people in charge will reveal.  That could be interesting.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

Because the Democrats tried so damn hard; and failed to come up with shit. [deleted]

And for the first time in our nation's history the SCOTUS is threatening to use The Constitution to take away a right and privilege.  You should be thankful they're not showing up in camo and assault rifles.  Count your blessings.

Again, for the who knows how many times- point out where abortion is even mentioned in the Constitution. It is not, nor has it ever been, an enumerated right. The Supreme Court made a law when deciding Roe vs Wade- they are not allowed to do that. Their over reach; and the Congress at the Federal level caused this entire mess. 

But hey, another keyboard warrior threatening the government. But it will be OK; Garland doesn't have the brains, morals, or courage to turn the FBI loose on you or any of the leftist Brownshirts.

Hell, the MAGA crowd defecated in the Capitol for lies and fraud.

Less damage, less deaths, and far less destruction than the BLM and Antifa riots; but those were Democrat sanctioned and approved. [deleted] Garland isn't prosecuting 90% of them. Of course he is too damn busy trying to track down every last person in the capital on Jan 6th and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. And threatening parents that have the audacity to voice their opinions over what their children are taught at tax payer funded public schools. Which is the reason he is so damn deserving of impeachment.

Vic, your incessant whining for 'the Mar-a-Lago man'is redundant. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 weeks ago

That entire comment is hilarious. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Protection for Trump is real.  Do not know why.  Cult.  Pelosi is right.  With Trump all roads lead to Russia.

And that comment 2.2 is not only absurd, but it is also absurd.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 weeks ago

Well said!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

We'll see how funny it is next year.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
"That entire comment is hilarious. "

In general, that's usually the case.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
"Less damage, less deaths, and far less destruction than the BLM and Antifa riots; but those were Democrat sanctioned and approved. [deleted] Garland isn't prosecuting 90% of them. Of course he is too damn busy trying to track down every last person in the capital on Jan 6th and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. And threatening parents that have the audacity to voice their opinions over what their children are taught at tax payer funded public schools. Which is the reason he is so damn deserving of impeachment."

This really is the icing on the cake though!

All they deal in is projection, deflection, and denial.

'Less damage, less deaths, and far less destruction'

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The height of living in some kind of alternate reality/Bizarro world.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

Yep, and the butt hurt reaction of the left will make 2016 seem like a Strawberry Social.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
With Trump all roads lead to Russia.

After the Democrats investigation into the Trump campaign, Trump's business, Trump's personal life it appears that is only true with the democrats.  Every thing the left and the Democrats alleged were based on Russian "inteligence" and dealings.  

And that comment 2.2 is not only absurd, but it is also absurd.

And yet you haven't shown WHY it's "absurd".  I wonder why that is.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

It'll be just as funny as it is now. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.6    2 weeks ago
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Confused?

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
2.2.11  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.6    2 weeks ago

Apparently, they don't know the difference between state charges and federal charges.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

To the contrary, team Trump gets away with nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
"If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

And for the first time in our nation's history the SCOTUS is threatening to use The Constitution to take away a right and privilege.  You should be thankful they're not showing up in camo and assault rifles.  Count your blessings.

Hell, the MAGA crowd defecated in the Capitol for lies and fraud.

Vic, your incessant whining for  'the Mar-a-Lago man' is redundant." 

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

You are my new hero!  

There heroes are such losers.  #45 and his criminal enterprise of an 'administration' and Reagan among the top - both demented puppets.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
If the laws were enforced in the US 2/3s of the Trump Administration would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

And exactly what would be the charges?  Remember  your hurt feelings aren't' chargeable offenses.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.5    2 weeks ago
would be quartered at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison.

bbl-1 makes a common mistake, confusing the United States Disciplinary Barracks on Ft. Leavenworth for military prisoners with the U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth KS for federal, non-military prisoners.  Two separate facilities about 5 miles apart.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.5.1    2 weeks ago

bbl-1 often forgets that there have to be chargeable offenses filed with evidence to have a trial that could result in a person being a resident of one of those facilities.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.5.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.5    one week ago

"And exactly what would be the the charges?"

And there in lies the rub so to speak. Lots of accusations, some of which may be valid, but no real charges that the liberal left has been able to make stick in a court of law so far.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.3    one week ago

So far every investigation has resulted in zero evidence.  Hard to file charges, have a trail or put somebody in prison when there is nothing to back up the allegations.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.5.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.5.4    one week ago

One of the biggest problems is that a great many people on the hard core liberal left are more interested in the court of public opinion than they are our real justice system.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.5.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.5    one week ago

That court of public opinion is mostly based on false / wrong information based on what they think should be.  No facts to back it up.  Just their emotions.  So they push that and start crying when the results aren't what they think they should be.  A lot of it now are all based on "what if" scenarios. 

What makes it funny is they think this will distract from the bigger problems for the mid-terms.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.5.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.5.6    one week ago

Yep, what they fail to forsee or recognize is that the proverbial hammer of Thor Mjolnir is going to fall hard in November and the leftist liberal Democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves. Oh but to be a fly on the wall when the moaning, whining, and blame shifting begins when the losses start being counted.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.5.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.7    one week ago

When The Democrats and Biden come out on the 1st day with a stack of EO's cancelling what was working it eliminated any chance they had anybody but themselves.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

You assume the protesters are breaking the law because you want them to be. 

I think such protests are counter productive, but it may well be that they are not illegal. I dont see proof that the protests are trying to "influence" the justices. And for sure they are not "obstructing justice". 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
I don't see proof that the protests are trying to "influence" the justices. And for sure they are not "obstructing justice". 

I'm not a prosecutor offering proof.  I just cited federal code to someone that seemed uninformed.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1    2 weeks ago

I was actually talking to Vic. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me from your post.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1    2 weeks ago

Do you think that the federal code actually means a Justice's personal home? That in and of itself will have to be litigated. Based on how the SCOTUS ruled on employees of women's clinics, they will have to give themselves more rights that the rest of the American people.  

The fact is, the SCOTUS is 'picketed' ad nauseum. Another fact is that people have a Constitutional right to petition their government for redress. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
Do you think that the federal code actually means a Justice's personal home?

I'm not a lawyer, what do you think the words in bold mean?

"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.

Based on how the SCOTUS ruled on employees of women's clinics, they will have to give themselves more rights that the rest of the American people.

They didn't write this federal law nor did the law include "woman's clinics".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
I'm not a lawyer, what do you think the words in bold mean?

That question doesn't answer MY question. 

However, I will answer yours.

It's obvious that the SCOTUS in DC qualifies as "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet there is no call for protestors outside of that building be prosecuted for picketing or parading, are there? Instead, they installed fencing. 

So, it's ridiculous to decry protestors outside of their homes when they allow it outside of their court. Unless of course you think that they should just prosecute the PART of the statute that you posted in bold. You don't think that do you? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
it's ridiculous to decry protestors outside of their homes

I haven't decried anything, have you confused me with someone else? 

when they allow it outside of their court.

It can be frustrating when laws aren't consistently enforced.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
They didn't write this federal law nor did the law include "woman's clinics".

So you're posit is that the SCOTUS will place themselves above the rest of us peasants. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
So you're posit is that the SCOTUS will place themselves above the rest of us peasants

No, The US Department of Justice has the mission to enforce US law.  Remember from Civics class the three branches of government.  

Got ya. 

Apparently not.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

Seems they have no problem when it's 'other's rights' being taken away.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
Seems you're the one who is confused

About the responsibilities that each branch of government has and hasn't?  No.  I'll be happy to clear up any confusion that you might have.   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
3.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.11    2 weeks ago
I'll be happy to clear up any confusion that you might have.   

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

Seems you aren’t very good at seeming.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.11    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.14    2 weeks ago
you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.12    2 weeks ago
Probably should pack a lunch ................................it may take quite awhile

When I was a commander, I liked to hold a brown bag lunch and let folks ask questions and discuss roles and responsibilities.  Maybe we could do that here with a virtual brown bag session.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.11    2 weeks ago

"Seems you're the one who is confused"

"Sorry, it wasn't clear to me from your post."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.16    2 weeks ago
You and your little buddy aren't the ones I seek for knowledge or facts or anything.  I see yours and his arrogance and attitudes towards those women you can't seem to stop following around and critiquing and offering me knowledge and advice jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif daily and it is quite informing and revealing.  
I see right through you both.  Do the women in your life see you the same way?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
3.1.19  1stwarrior  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.16    2 weeks ago

Were you CG or Navy?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
No, The US Department of Justice has the mission to enforce US law.  Remember from Civics class the three branches of government. 

Actually, based on the US Code you pretend to exalt [40 U.S. Code 61], the Marshal of the Supreme Court enforces regulations, approved by the Chief Justice, which govern the SC building and grounds. 

So, it isn't up to Merritt Garland who or what is allowed on the grounds of the SC. Nor is it up to the DOJ to police the streets of Chevy Chase, MD or Alexandria, VA. No arrests were made at the homes of Alito or Kavanaugh. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.20    2 weeks ago
Actually, based on the US Code you pretend to exalt

You confused copy/past or link for exalt.

approved by the Chief Justice, which govern the SC building and grounds

I pasted nothing about enforcing regulations governing the SC building or grounds.  I copied a federal law which makes a felony any protests near a residence occupied or used by a judge, juror, witness, or court officer with the intent of influencing the discharge of his duty.  I can resend the link if you've lost it and can't remember what you read about the law.  

 Nor is it up to the DOJ to police the streets of Chevy Chase, MD or Alexandria, VA.

Of course not:  "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."

No arrests were made at the homes of Alito or Kavanaugh. 

Not yet.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.21    2 weeks ago
I pasted nothing about enforcing regulations governing the SC building or grounds.  I copied a federal law which makes a felony any protests near a residence occupied or used by a judge, juror, witness, or court officer with the intent of influencing the discharge of his duty.  I can resend the link if you've lost it and can't remember what you read about the law.  

The US Code you cited clearly includes the SC building or grounds. Why are you so desperate to ignore that fact? 

You stated:

No, The US Department of Justice has the mission to enforce US law.  Remember from Civics class the three branches of government.  

As my comment proves, the DOJ does NOT enforce the regulations governing the SC building or grounds in DC.

Of course not:

Then WTF do you expect the DOJ to enforce? No arrests were made therefore there is no one to prosecute. 

Not yet.

Do you have information that authorities are pursuing the arrest of protestors at a later date? If not, your comment is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.22    2 weeks ago
The US Code you cited clearly includes the SC building or grounds. Why are you so desperate to ignore that fact? 

I didn't ignore it, why can't you remember that it also includes the residence or don't you know what that means?

"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."

Then WTF do you expect the DOJ to enforce?

I didn't say that I expected them to do anything?  Have you confused me with another comment?  The DOJ doesn't prosecute every suspected crime, it's selective.

If not, your comment is irrelevant. 

Unlike yours, mine have been factual.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.23    2 weeks ago
I didn't ignore it,

Yet you failed to highlight that part in bold.

You sure as hell DID ignore my question:

It's obvious that the SCOTUS in DC qualifies as "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet there is no call for protestors outside of that building be prosecuted for picketing or parading, are there? 

You and yours are demanding that those 'picketing or parading' outside of Justice's homes be arrested and prosecuted while ignoring the FACT that the Chief Justice FAILS to do so to those doing just that outside of the SC building in DC. 

WHY prosecute one set of protestors under that statute and not another? 

why can't you remember that it also includes the residence or don't you know what that means?

That's a strawman. Never happened.

     Then WTF do you expect the DOJ to enforce? I didn't say that I expected them to do anything?  Have you confused me with another comment?  The DOJ doesn't prosecute every suspected crime, it's selective.

Really? 

No, The US Department of Justice has the mission to enforce US law.  Remember from Civics class the three branches of government.  

That was you right? Why pretend otherwise? 

Unlike yours, mine have been factual.

For THAT comment to be factual, you should support it with a block quote of a comment that I made that is fictional. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.25  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.24    2 weeks ago
Yet you failed to highlight that part in bold.

Why highlight what you all ready know?

You sure as hell DID ignore my question:

Your question was rhetorical since you already knew the answer. 

You and yours are demanding that those 'picketing or parading' outside of Justice's homes be arrested and prosecuted while ignoring the FACT that the Chief Justice FAILS to do so to those doing just that outside of the SC building in DC. 

I haven't demanded anything, you must keep confusing me with someone else.  I don't really know what authorities the Chief Justice has on the sidewalks around the court.

WHY prosecute one set of protestors under that statute and not another?

What is WHY an acronym for?  Regardless, I don't understand your question 

That's a strawman. Never happened.

What never happened?

Really? 

I'm stunned that you were unaware of that.

That was you right? Why pretend otherwise? 

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together

For THAT comment to befactual, you should support it with a block quote of a comment that I made that is fictional. 

Actually, based on the US Code you pretend to exalt [40 U.S. Code 61], the Marshal of the Supreme Court enforces regulations, approved by the Chief Justice, which govern the SC building and grounds. 

So you're posit is that the SCOTUS will place themselves above the rest of us peasants. Got ya. 

Do you think that the federal code actually means a Justice's personal home? That in and of itself will have to be litigated. Based on how the SCOTUS ruled on employees of women's clinics, they will have to give themselves more rights that the rest of the American people.

Please proceed. 

I just did.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.25    2 weeks ago

Your entire comment is obtuse and unworthy of addressing. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @3.1.26    2 weeks ago

I'm sorry that you didn't understand it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.27    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.pngjrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png

3.1.26, I think it means the debate is over, and you have won.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.27    2 weeks ago

I understood it perfectly. Hence my characterization that it is obtuse. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.27    2 weeks ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.30    2 weeks ago
He or she understands perfectly what your game is.

Dulay hasn't self identified to you?

If you think you've won any points or are winning this little game you're playing, some of us see right through you!

Points, game?  I'm still relatively new here and don't know all the options on NT.  I didn't know anything about a game with points.  Appreciate your help in how to register or sign up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.31    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.32    2 weeks ago

Thank you, You're one of the most empathetic here on NT, always thinking of others.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
You assume the protesters are breaking the law because you want them to be. 

You assume your far leftist Brown shirts aren't breaking the law; because their corrupt Democrat enablers at the federal level hold power. 

I dont see proof that the protests are trying to "influence" the justices. And for sure they are not "obstructing justice". 

Educate yourself- the videos don't lie.

Protesters outside Brett M. Kavanaugh’s house warned the Supreme Court justice this weekend, “If you take away our choices, we will riot.” They marched on Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s home chanting “Abort the court!”

The Schumer quote that triggered Roberts’s reply is this: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Also, please show us where the Supreme Court has announced a decision and released their written verdicts? You don't know where this is in terms of drafts; chances are there have been several more drafts since the very old one by Alito that was stolen and released. Until the decision is released it is not decided; which is why these pathetic leftist Brownshirts are trying to intimidate and coerce the conservative Justices.

You damn well know that if positions were reversed and it was far right anti abortionists threatening the liberal judges and planned parenthood; you would be screaming bloody murder for Garland, the FBI, and the states to take action and charge every last protester with a hate crime.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

I see nothing wrong with peaceful protest outside of the Supreme Court building, but protesting outside of the Justices' homes is intimidation pure and simple.  But go ahead.  I've already posted my opinion about backfiring as comments on two other articles and shouldn't have to repeat it here. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.3    2 weeks ago

I agree.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
You assume the protesters are breaking the law because you want them to be. 

The law is posted. It's clear that the protestors are in violation.


I dont see proof that the protests are trying to "influence" the justices. 

Under that standard, nobody would be in violation. Even Mad Sam DeStefano would go free.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    2 weeks ago

Peaceful protests involving only passive resistance and free speech are constitutionally guaranteed. If the Supreme Court is inspiring people to take to the streets in peaceful protest then they should reconsider...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5    2 weeks ago
then they should reconsider...

Reconsider what?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    2 weeks ago

That's obtuse. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

I thought the same but didn't want to be that explicit with JBB.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

I mean YOUR comment.

Your BS is getting old. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @5.1.3    2 weeks ago
Your BS is getting old.

I just turned 68, how old are you?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

BS never dies, it just smells that way.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.3    2 weeks ago
"I mean YOUR comment. Your BS is getting old."

It's quite tiresome.  The superciliousness abounds.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
The superciliousness abounds.

Cool.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
5.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
The superciliousness abounds.

Yeah you should probably have that checked out.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.8    one week ago

I think they make medicines for that...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.2  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5    2 weeks ago
s inspiring people to take to the streets in peaceful protest then they shouldreconsider...

If they are protesting in front of the justices home to get the justices to reconsider , isn't it obvious that the protestors are attempting to influence the court members to change their vote therefore engaging in an unlawful protest?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @5.2    2 weeks ago
If they are protesting in front of the justices home to get the justices to reconsider , isn't it obvious that the protestors are attempting to influence the court members to change their vote therefore engaging in an unlawful protest?

Well, it IS obvious to most people.

Of course the protesters are breaking the law by protesting at Justices' residents.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @6    2 weeks ago

You need Ginni Thomas in there pulling token Thomas's strings.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Oh those nasty protesters even drew on the sidewalk with, oh the horror, chalk and Suzie Collins had a meltdown. Seems to be quite a few folks around here who need to stop pearl clutching and that includes the master clutcher himself, Teddybear Cruz.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @7    2 weeks ago

That old bat Collins needs to take a chill pill.  How dare they write in chalk on the sidewalk!!!!!  Called the police!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

4 deletions! Maybe you and your friend could get a room and a bottle of Goo-Gone?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

Obviously we need something to get the goo off of us, appreciate the suggestion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

You've confused us as friends.  I don't know what to call it.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

If not careful, you might hurt my feelings.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.9  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7    2 weeks ago

Publish your address please, so someone can send a group of crazed right wing extremist to protest your opinion, in front of your home.

Shouldn’t be problem, even in Canada ...... right?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    2 weeks ago

Here ya go:

Hal & Lux

113 Lewis Av.

Westmount, Qc

Canada

H3Z2K6

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    2 weeks ago

We don't want you trumpturd supporters outside our doors!

You drones!

Hive minds!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7.2.1    2 weeks ago

Good, if genuine, it’s doubtful anyone will waste any time on your unimportant ass but you already knew that.

By the way ..... Quebec ..... figures

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.2    2 weeks ago

Stop projecting your anger onto others and by the way, didn’t you put me on ignore ..... again?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.4    2 weeks ago

Just needed to give the stats man who never provides any facts or truth or stats - just projects his drone/hive bullshit

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.6  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.3    2 weeks ago
By the way ..... Quebec ..... figures

Care to digress?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @7.2.6    2 weeks ago

How about 'your unimportant ass'

?????????

Some folks have such an overvalued estimation of their own asses.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.5    2 weeks ago

It’s really sad to see how angry you are.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7.2.6    2 weeks ago

Nah, I’ll leave that to my friends on the left here

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.10  Hallux  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.7    2 weeks ago

My ass is 72, it's only important when I sit on it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7.2.10    2 weeks ago

You appear bothered that you never obtained a position as important as SCOTUS.  It’s okay, not everyone does.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.8    2 weeks ago

It's obvious I'm not angry.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.12    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.14  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.11    2 weeks ago

I'm one of many:

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7.2.14    2 weeks ago

Too each their own.    

Myself I don’t feel that level of self-flagellation is necessary 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
7.2.16  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.15    2 weeks ago

“Myself I don’t feel that level of self-flagellation is necessary”

Self-congratulatory responses are more than sufficient. Hence the ‘my pillow’ model…whatever gets one through the night. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.17  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @7.2.16    2 weeks ago
Self-congratulatory responses are more than sufficient.

If that works for you, go for it.    I’ve alway lived by the old adage: “it ain’t bragging if it’s the truth” but ymmv.

Hence the ‘my pillow’ success…whatever gets one through the night. 

I’ll never understand why success angers so many on the left.    It helps pay for all those social programs they love so much.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @7.2.16    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8  mocowgirl    2 weeks ago

This is all ridiculous in a country that holds itself as a model to other countries of what they should strive for.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  mocowgirl @8    2 weeks ago

Really .... I mean it’s baffling why so many want to come here ...... right?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    2 weeks ago
Really .... I mean it’s baffling why so many want to come here ...... right?

Really?  Who is coming here?  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
Really?  Who is coming here?  

You must have missed the current news at the US southern border .....

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.2    one week ago
You must have missed the current news at the US southern border .....

That was my point.

Desperate people.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.3    one week ago

Really, do desperate people all have top of the line suit cases and designer clothes? 

These days, however, there's a very different kind of immigrant who wants to come to this country — the rich — and they have a different set of dreams.

Anthony Korda was a barrister, or lawyer, in England who vacationed frequently in the U.S. with his family.

"Each time we left the nice weather of Florida, we were more depressed about having to leave," Korda tells NPR's Robert Smith.

Korda says they did not look forward to slogging through the London rain, so he made a lifestyle choice: He was going to immigrate to the U.S. and live in a place where you could get a real tan.

Korda found pretty quickly, though, that the last thing the U.S. needed was more lawyers, so a standard or employment-based visa was unlikely. But then he saw a shortcut to becoming an American in a small,   obscure federal program   called EB-5, designed for people like him to get into the country — if they had enough money.

"It looked too good to be true," he says.

All Korda had to do was cash out most of his savings — about $500,000 — and invest in an American business. If he could help create 10 jobs, then he would get a green card.

Korda's investment was a ski resort in Vermont that was looking to improve its infrastructure. So he put down his money and got to move to Florida and vacation in Vermont. He and his family got the American dream, but what did America get in return?

I am sure all of the Chinese coming to the US and not leaving are desperate as well?

China is the main source of foreign students enrolled in U.S. higher education, and its nationals received the second-largest number of employer-sponsored H-1B temporary visas in fiscal year 2018, after Indians. Chinese nationals received nearly half of EB-5 investor green cards in 2018.

The United States is the top destination for Chinese immigrants, accounting for almost 27 percent of the more than 12 million Chinese living outside of China, according to mid-2019 estimates by the United Nations Population Division. Other popular destinations include Canada (920,000), Japan (785,000), Australia (750,000), South Korea (620,000), and Singapore (451,000).

Definitions

The U.S. Census Bureau defines the foreign born as individuals who had no U.S. citizenship at birth. The foreign-born population includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, legal nonimmigrants (including those on student, work, or other temporary visas), and persons residing in the country without authorization.

The terms foreign born and immigrant are used interchangeably and refer to those who were born in another country and later emigrated to the United States.

Unless otherwise stated, estimates for China include the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau, but exclude Taiwan.

Compared to the overall foreign- and native-born populations in the United States, Chinese immigrants are significantly better educated and more likely to be employed in management positions. Almost 30 percent of Chinese who obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States (also known as getting a green card) did so through employment-based routes; the remainder qualified through family ties or as asylees.

Things really suck in the US./S

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.4    one week ago
Really, do desperate people all have top of the line suit cases and designer clothes? 

Ronin2,

I was replying to the statement about the immigrants crossing our southern border.

I am in favor of controlled immigration with a point system for age and education to fill the job vacancies that can't be filled with US citizens.

That is not what is happening at the southern border.  The majority, if not all, are economic refugees with little education or job skills.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.5    one week ago

Looking for free Biden bucks

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.5    one week ago

And being an "economic refugee" is not a reason to either ask for or to grant asylum.  

 
 

Who is online


Jeremy Retired in NC
Hallux
jw
Wishful_thinkin
Thomas
Ronin2
igknorantzrulz
Ozzwald


37 visitors