From Court Packing to Leaking to Doxing: White House Yields to a National Rage Addiction
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in the Hill on the leak and the refusal of President Joe Biden to denounce such conduct. It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.
Here is the column:
Nearly 70 years ago, a little-known lawyer named Joseph Welchfamously confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy (D-Wis.) in defense of a young man hounded over alleged un-American views. Welch told McCarthy that "I think I have never really gauged … your recklessness" before asking: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
It was a defining moment in American politics as Welch called out a politician who had abandoned any semblance of principle in the pursuit of political advantage. This week, the same scene played out in the White House with one striking difference: This was no Joseph Welch to be found.
After someone in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a virtual flash-mob formed around the court and its members demanding retributive justice. This included renewed calls for court "packing," as well as the potential targeting of individual justices at their homes. Like the leaking of the opinion itself, the doxing of justices and their families is being treated as fair game in our age of rage.
There is more than a license to this rage; there is an addiction to it. That was evident in March 2020 when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood in front of the Supreme Court to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name: "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." Schumer's reckless rhetoric was celebrated, not condemned, by many on the left, even after he attempted to walk it back by stating that "I should not have used the words I used … they did not come out the way I intended to."
What occurred at the White House this week is even more troubling. When asked for a response to the leaking of a justice's draft opinion, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to condemn the leaker and said the real issue was the opinion itself. Then she was asked about the potential targeting of justices and their families at their homes, and whether that might be considered extreme. It should have been another easy question; few Americans would approve of such doxing, particularly since some of the justices have young children at home. Yet Psaki declared that "I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," adding that "peaceful protest is not extreme."
In reality, not having an official position on doxing and harassing Supreme Court justices and their families is a policy.
Whether protests are judged to be extreme seems often to depend upon their underlying viewpoints. When Westboro Baptist Church activists protested at the funeral of Beau Biden, it was peaceful — but many critics rightly condemned the demonstration as extreme; some even approved of Westboro activists being physically assaulted. When the church brought its case before the Supreme Court, some of us supported its claims despite our vehement disagreement with their views, but 42 senators filed an amicus brief asking the court to deny free-speech protections for such protests. The court ultimately ruled 8-1 in favor of the church.
In this case, the Biden administration and the Justice Department have condemned the court's leaked draft — but not the threatened protests at justices' homes, even though those arguably could be treated as a crime. Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)
Even if protests at justices' homes are constitutionally protected, that does not make them right, any more than the lawful Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954 were right.
In 1954, the left was targeted for its political views; today, it is the left which is calling for censorship, blacklisting and doxing. In such moments of reckless rage, presidents often have become calming voices, tempering extremist passions in their own parties. When they have failed to do so, history has judged them harshly, as in the case of President Eisenhower's belated condemnation of Sen. McCarthy, something he reportedly regretted for the rest of his life.
President Biden has repeatedly shown that polls, not principles, guide his presidency. He showed integrity as a senator by denouncing court packing as a "bonehead … terrible, terrible" idea. However, he has stayed silent as today's Democrats have pushed to pack the court with an instant liberal majority, a demand that increased this week. Biden long supported the Senate's filibuster rule and said efforts to eliminate it would be "disastrous" — but when today's mob formed, he flipped and denounced the filibuster as a "relic" of the Jim Crow era.
Even on abortion, Biden has shifted with the polls. He once opposed Roe v. Wade and supported an amendment that would negate the decision. At the time, he declared that "I don't think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body." Now President Biden has switched his position without really switching his logic. He recently declared that he supported Roe because "I'm just a child of God; I exist" and thus can decide what happens to his body. Accordingly, he denounced the Supreme Court's draft opinion as "radical" and affirmed the right of a woman "to abort a child."
Whether it is court leaking, packing, doxing or other tactics, many Democratic politicians and pundits continue to follow the mob rather than risk its ire.
Our national addiction to rage is captured in three indelible images. In June 2020, there was the White House surrounded by security fencing after nights of arson and rioting; in January 2021, Congress was surrounded by the same fencing after rioting that momentarily halted the certification of the presidential election. Now the set is complete with photos of the Supreme Court encased in the same fencing.
All three branches, having to be protected from enraged citizens on the left or the right.
Schumer's 2020 pledge that justices would "pay the price" has been realized as they and their families are now bunkered in their homes. Despite the shocking image of a court system under attack, President Biden has not mustered the courage to dissuade these protesters. He appears to be following the lead of French revolutionary Abbe Sieyes, who watched as his 1789-99 revolution spun out of control; asked what he had done during "the Terror," he replied: "I survived."
President Biden is now in survival mode, too. It seems he does not lack decency, just the courage to defend it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley .
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
The consequences of the 2020 election:
The radical left is in control.
poor autocrats still don't get it after more than 250 years. yield to the will of the majority or we will take away your power with one method or another. good government reflects the wishes of it's citizens. over 2/3's support abortion.
Great, now you are a supporter of mob rule.
Wonderful.
Sounds like insurrection!
welcome to america.
"you won't know what hit you" - vic eldred
Not in its present form, they don't. Especially when it comes to late or partial birth abortions.
You seem to approve of violence and violating societal norms on the part of the leftists to achieve their misguided goals
We must live in different Americas then.
My America doesn't succumb to mob rule, my America is a nation of law.
I prefer my America to yours.
Try again- the quote came from Little Chucky Schumer.
I meant no offense to any survivors...
When you started following Trump, you gave up the idea of Rule of Law. Trump's administration open flaunted violations to the rule of law and presidential customs.
Like hell I did.
Kudos for working Trump in, again.
Sigh.
Are you quoting Chuck Schumer or trying tothreaten me?
I was quoting the title of your article, which isn't in quotations. I had no idea you lifted the quote from chuck schumer until you mentioned it.
It is attributed to Schumer in the Quote section where it is presented in full context.
If you never heard Schumer say it, then you don't follow the news much. It's fairly well known. I'm sure the 3 who voted you up know.
as is your habit of playing fast and loose with unattributed materials in allegedly original op/ed's.
As is your habit of false accusations, slander and constant trolling. You are the reason that at least one member quit.
Don't forget to give Perrie a wink.
I did? gee, who would that be?
I rarely use emoji's and it has been a while since your last insinuating article in meta. go for it.
What does that mean, Vic?
Sounds like a wink is as good as a nod Monty Python skit or some inner allusion to an illusion. Vic ponders in ponderous ways.
They can't even get their threats straight.
I look forward to observing the ignorant victims due to the repetition of history.
We've been watching the left do that for years now.
He has that tendency to give you a wink when he is clearly trolling on Metafield, as if it's supposed to be funny. You never noticed that?
[deleted]
Ah yes, Metafield, a.k.a the Field of Screams where dreams go to scream in the bleachers: "It's my ball Perrie, I tried to catch it first."
Wow. Chalk it up on the 'leaderboard' - a conservative who implies he listens to (and knows) today's news. Usually, such an admission is 'taboo.'
Many of us follow the news.
Hence, his knowledge of a quote that is fairly well-known by people who actually DO follow the news.
There has been NO violence at any of the Justice's homes.
I wonder if that is because of the heightened security covering them?
What do you think that we should do to stop them?
[deleted]
I would not have agreed with packing the SCOTUS, but I do consider Trump's not maintaining a balance for it in his appointments to be tantamount to "Packing the Court" as much as increasing the numbers. However, in the event that in making the final decision this summer, if Kavanaugh proves that he lied on being vetted about Roe v Wade, and Amy Conan Barrett, who well established herself to be totally dedicated to anti-abortion does not recuse herself from the final decision, I think Biden packing the court would be totally justifiable.
Natually, conservatives will not agree with me, because after all, what experience do I have with law and who the hell am I to have such an objective opinion when I'm not even an American citizen?
[deleted]
Nice try, Sean, but no cigar. You actually succeeded in posting a reply to me that hasn't been deleted for taunting, but I sure wish you could try to include the first letter for every quotation you post. Nobody else seems to have such a problem.
ou actually succeeded in posting a reply to me that hasn't been deleted for taunting,
Just so you know, I never flag you. Your words are my best argument. I understand your need to censor my words.
LOL. "ou"? who is "ou"?
I'm sure you would have flagged me when you could have, but even if you had I'm rarely deleted because I pay heed to the CoC and ToS.
I don't have to flag you, your taunting has been so well recognized and consistent that even the conservative mods consider it offensive. In fact I've seen that your comments have been deleted for taunting so many times this month already (and not always aimed at me) that I'm surprised you're not already serving a short vacation from this site,
By appointing jurists who believe in the Constitution as written? For about 50 years we had democrat presidents appointing activist jurists who sought to legislate. You want a balance of those two things?
However, in the event that in making the final decision this summer, if Kavanaugh proves that he lied on being vetted about Roe v Wade, and Amy Conan Barrett, who well established herself to be totally dedicated to anti-abortion does not recuse herself from the final decision, I think Biden packing the court would be totally justifiable.
No judge ever promised not to reconsider any ruling.
Natually, conservatives will not agree with me, because after all, what experience do I have with law and who the hell am I to have such an objective opinion when I'm not even an American citizen?
As you can see, I listened, considered and rendered an opinion.
Nonsense. I don't flag outside of criminal or abusive situations, which I've only done a handful of times in the years I've been here. I want your posts to remain for people to see. [deleted]
n fact I've seen that your comments have been deleted for taunting so many times this month already
Lol Partisan moderating on the front page will do that. Some people need safe spaces where their views aren't challenged. Those silly deletions don't cost any points.
It's just gaslighting. No one with even a basic understanding of legal terms could believe the conservative justices "perjured" themselves. It's idiotic.
But we knew that's where they would go.
You are welcome to your opinion. Based on what I see above I am not seeing objectivity as much as democratic talking points. Supreme court justices are very adept at not committing to much of anything in order to get confirmed. They are justices and supposed to judge on the constitution, it is not a surprise that they don't always agree on it. RBG was as much an advocate as a supreme court justice and I don't recall screams to recuse herself like I see today. Packing the court is nothing more than an attempt to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. Great precedent to set.
As I said, Trump already "packed the court". It no longer has balance. If my advocating for balance is considered democratic talking points, so be it. I call it the way I see it.
He packed the court because he happened to be able to nominate 3 supreme court justices that have a certain philosophy? If Joe gets to nominate a few more with a liberal philosophy will he be packing the court too? So we add justices every time a president has more than one nomination? As I said great precedent to set.
Americans can live in their see-saw world, I really don't give a shit. After all, doesn't politics come first? My preference is to consider judicial expertise and NOT politics in making such appointments. The biggest joke on TV was in West Wing, where the Democrat POTUS Matt Santos played by Jimmy Smits apponted the Republican Arnold Viinick, played by Alan Alda, to be Secretary of State - he did it because of expertise if not unity, not politics. Ha ha ha ha.
By the way, I, and a lot of Americans, consider that third appointment was not only a dirty trick pulled by Trump after McConnell had blocked Obama's final attempt to appoint, but it was SPECIFICALLY aimed at pleasing his Ultra-Christian base. Fucking politics. Glad you're happy with it.
[removed]
Why is any of this surprising? Everyone seems to forget that Democrats created and supported the KKK. Democrats only threw the KKK under the bus when it was politically expedient.
The facts are that Biden can't take a stand out of fear that his left flank will attack him. The media is focusing attention on the Ruth Sent Us bunch protesting outside the homes of justices. But the Ruth Sent Us bunch has also been protesting outside Pelosi's home, too. The new rage merchants on the political left are using the same tactics as the KKK to control the Democratic Party through fear. The history of the Democratic Party is repeating itself. After 200 years Democrats haven't learned anything.
What kills me is this is all over a DRAFT. Not even the official final decision.
They are looking for anything to lessen the coming bloodbath in the midterms. A judicial clerk serves for about a year - ending next month. We know what the left is capable of.
It's sad, really. The conservative 'demon-making' machine is up and running ad-nauseum. No mention from 'mind-locked' conservatives who somehow need liberal girls and women to obey the conservative stream of consciousness; and, birth children these girls and women neither want or in plenty cases need. It's all too much.
How long, O God, must this life be a trial, a test, a tribulation with men and women who can't be happy in their own worldview?!!!
And yet, Alito and 'company' of conservative Justices could not contain themselves from making a wave election out of it! Stop meddling with girls and women's lives for some stupid cause even conservative girls and women can't live up to. Because conservative girls and women do fornicate, are raped, and subsequently will get secret abortions! Y'all can pretend all you wish, but we see it, we hear it, and everybody should know it.
So, SCOTUS should not even take cases then, in fear of voters who will never, ever vote for them?
SCOTUS accepted the case, it is their duty to hear it.
Why would SCOTUS members, none of who are running for any office, be concerned about voters?
They decide cases on the merits, and law.
Of course they are. If this were from one of the liberal judges it wouldn't have seen the light of day.
I've even seem one "esteemed" member of the left here on NT try to play what this clerk did as whistle blowing and that any investigation into them should be deemed illegal.
You make neither an argument or establish facts but you're good with wishes.
Depending on the final decision to be issued this summer, they just might turn that bloodbath around on the Republicans. That is, as long as American women prefer not to be considered "handmaidens". Republicans are doing whatever they can to supress voting rights, but they should have considered having the SCOTUS reverse women's suffrage before dealing with abortion.
Nope, not a chance. There are not enough radical abortion activists to overcome all those motorists hating Biden every time they fill up at the gas station or working people trying to make ends meet.
Republicans are doing whatever they can to supress voting rights,
How do they do that?
but they should have considered having the SCOTUS reverse women's suffrage before dealing with abortion.
A lot of women value life.
Everybody values life, Vic. Although in my religion life begins with birth, I also believe that there are circumstances wherein abortion should be permitted and some wherein it should not. IMO those decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by a government, the SCOTUS or a political party.
Whether your opinion is a good one or not, the Constitution is not based on what feels good. This kind of law requires legislative action.
Is everything controlled by the Constitution and its Amendments - and if not, then it's not allowed?
No! We have a congress that legislates!
Okay, then depending on the November outcome, such legislation may or may not happen, and I guess from your answer it will be an answer to the SCOTUS that they will either not want to, or not be able to reverse.
Why are we waiting for November?
Chuck Schumer is putting a bill passed already in the House to a vote tomorrow!
But does it not have to be passed by 60 in the the Senate to become law? You know very well how likely that won't happen? Sorry, but I have no idea what needs 60 as opposted to what can pass with 50 plus Harris.
Are you saying that no Republican would vote for it?
I was told that a majority of the people are in favor of abortion. If the people's representatives won't vote for it, you want activist judges to impose it?
Don't even dream that I think most politicians abide by principle or actually act to represent or are concerned with the feelings of the people in the constituency they represent. IMO the primary motivation of most politicians is to secure themselves in their position and to abide by their party line as long as it will still secure their personal reelection. Sorry, but I think I'm a lot more cynical than you.
More women than men are pro life. They might not like being called "handmaidens" because of their views. I am not sure how calling them names will make them vote dem but keep up the good work. By suppress votes do you mean actually prove you are alive and who you say you are before being allowed to vote?
Actually, more women than men are pro-choice.
Really it 'kills' you, Jeremy?! Well, this reminds me of something Maya Angelou stated:
In 2020's presidential election season you made a comment that I will forever associate with you (it can not be taken back), but out of discretion I won't mention it here. It was a 'draft' and later on, January 6, 2021 we were given a rude awakening when the Capitol was breached.
And now, here is Turley opining and making his preferences known in support of Alito's 'draft.' Which is hard evidence of where Alito's and his fellow conservatives who support his opinion come down on the issue, recently.
I would love to see a link to what you read to get that from. Because it certainly didn't come from THIS article.
Please quote Turley if at all possible, since you are claiming something not in evidence.
The fallacy with that is you may see how I react to one person then react completely different to another person. The reason for that is that I react to how you act. For instance you act like an ass, I'll treat you as an ass. You act like you have common sense, I'll treat you as if you have common sense.
Like everybody else, I make a lot of statements. You're going to have to be specific.
Still running that fallacy are we?
Looking for a link but not quite seeing it...
Because it was a clear invention--easier to argue that way!
Not that we expect anything remotely close to honesty from the left.
Sorry, you are 'verbalizing' but the message is full of it. Maya Angelou has this completely right. Some of you conservatives are the bane of this country's existence. This persistence with making life miserable for liberals has turned this country into a cesspool for all of us.
Still looking for that link...
More smoke and mirrors, I see.
Maybe because you claimed something, once again, that you fail to support with any facts or links despite requests to do so.
If one can't substantiate their arguments, it is perfectly natural to believe the argument was incredibly weak to begin with.
Claiming others are using smoke and mirrors when one can't support their claims is amusing but wrong.
Both myself and Texan ask you for a link for your quote and you think it's "smoke and mirrors"? is that the new liberal way to try to get out of something after your bullshit is called out?
It would be better if you just admit you are pulling this from your 4th point of contact.
First of all, I will thank you to not imagine any orifice on my body and I will do the same for you. Secondly, I don't need to play stupid games of deflection with you. Thus, take my comment/s any way you please or not please. I won't waste back and forths retorting your tedious efforts as saying and 'moving' absolutely nothing forward in the discussion!
If you are truly interested in "moving forward", simply respond like you are interested in it by supplying SOMETHING to support your theories and arguments.
Sorry if asking for such is "wasting time".
I guess the REAL waste of time was asking for anything from you in the first place, somehow, in the face of facts, hoping that for once you would be able to support your claims.
But you do anyway. That's all part of being part of the left I guess.
I, and I'm pretty sure Texan, takes your comment the same way. A cowardly cop out.
So you're going to cut and run instead of providing the links you were ask for.
Thus, take my comment/s any way you please or not please
His calls for "unity" and "compassion" fall short when he constantly degrades conservatives.
His calls for "productive talks" falls short when he won't ever answer questions but demands answers to his own.
Just a game he likes to play.
A game most of us outgrew when we were 5.
As usual your comment is taken as it exactly is. Pure garbage.
Tell me how you REALLY feel, since you are going to tell me anything else.
So you're saying that a Trump mob didn't breach the capital under his orders?
We all saw the many, many, many videos that prove differently.
If there is any justice in this world Trump will serve prison time for his treason.
Still waiting on the proof of "under orders". But we've also seen many, many, many videos that prove Capitol Police let them in. Or are we supposed to ignore that?
First you have to prove Treason. So far, you've got nothing. Just like every other investigation into Trump.
The denial is strong.
Uh, he just did.
"Last week, you OK’d issuing maps to Justices’ homes (a stance you haven’t reversed). Days later, after Justices’ homes swarmed+at least one fled, you softly, meekly criticize violence. If you cared about their well-being you’d tell Biden supporters to stay away from their homes."....Stephen Miller
If conservatives cared about the well-being of girls and women, they would tell Alito and his conservative cohorts to support girls and women instead of stirring around in the 'crap' of destroying precedence and stare decisis.
But conservatives don't care, and that is the crux of the matter and on full display here.
If liberals gave a damn about something other than themselves, they would condemn doxing SCOTUS members, liberal members of Congress threatening Justices by name, etc. instead of destroying the system by calling for court packing to win on a single issue.
Stephen Miller is a hateful scumbag white supremacist. Don't take anything he says seriously.
Isn't everybody?
"Isn't everybody?"
In that criminal enterprise of an 'administration'? Racists, most definitely. Most of them.
I strongly criticize the treasonous violence on 1-6 by far-right wing Trump owned fascists.
Oh the 'horror' a draft opinion was leaked ... it's the end of civilization. Mr. Turley needs a long vacation at the Asylum of Charenton.
As a man you cited the other day would say "The cats in the bag and the bags in the river."
So what secret has been exposed in your opinion?
Yeah, because THAT happens all the time, right?
SMH
Often enough that I don't feign shock and point knee-jerk accusatory fingers.
Cite the times then that a SCOTUS decision has been leaked in this manner.
I do not know, however, I look forward to the excuses if the leak came from someone on the right.
You stated "often enough", but now can't cite even one case?
And why are you now deflecting?
You will get no excuses from me. I don't give a damn who leaked it. They must be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. At the very least disbarred forever.
Cite the times SCOTUS has repealed a right...
Why?
I wasn't talking about that at all.
Why the deflection?
100%!
That would be the very least as actually no crime has been committed.
Alito's opinion was far worse for the country than the leak could ever be.
Thank god for whoever leaked Alito's far-right wing insanity!
Folk should know what fascist SCOTUS judges are planning for their future.
Exactly, these people should learn to keep their opinions to themselves.
y'all really crack me up with all the fascist nonsense!
This lob-sided opinion-defense of the conservative perspective lacks decency of its own.
Jonathan Turley has taken a side, it's plain and clear. That he dares to 'call out' democrats and by extension all liberals, while not criticizing conservative who have persisted in making this issue possible is evidence of a bias.
Mr. Turley, while you are seeking to go viral with a (new) witch hunt, girls and women, some I am sure you know and love, gaze at you askance. Why? Because you have not spoken on the root cause of has transpired, which causes your 'inspiration' to write.
And some women support him.
And you say that to say what? Some women can be wrong depending on the size, scope, and degree of and issue. Just uttering, "And some women support him" as a retort serves no useful purpose!
Uh, his point was that even women have different views on abortion.
Don;t you already know that?
Looks like you missed the point of the article.
Turley isn't arguing for or against abortion. He clearly is pointing out the hypocrisy and flip-flopping of Biden, Biden and his Administration's refusal to condemn either the leak itself or the protesting at Justice's residences, and Chuckie Schumer threatening Justices by name publicly.
It the pro abortion liberals homes were doxed imagine the media outrage
The DOJ and FBI would be tracking down the protestors and those that gave out the information for prosecution already.
No one should be disturbed at home. Moreover, Justice Thomas remarking that justices can't be bullied belies a fact that it is unfair to girls and women when justices obfuscate, lie, and omit their intentions by writing and assenting to an opinion which seeks to remove stare decisis on girls and women privacy and personal autonomy as child-bearers after getting placed in seats of power.
Sorry for you that not everyone, including SCOTUS members, don't agree with your take on things.
Do you have any idea what the decision is based on?
That doesn't have to be imagined Greg. The SCOTUS ruled that 'Pro-Life' protestors had a Constitutional right to protest outside of clinician's homes.
Goose, gander...
Please cite the case.
18 U.S. Code § 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.
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.
I'll ask you what I asked Vic:
Should all of the 'pro-life protestors' at the SCOTUS be prosecuted?
If not, your comment is ridiculous.
I made no comment, I cited a US Code. How did I confuse you?
The majority of them are.
I see that you confused US Code for a comment as well.
Nope not confused at all as to your intentions or your leanings or your comments
Oh, so you posted a US Code for no reason other than deflection. Got ya.
You didn't.
Deflection, projection, denial. All they got. Also claiming to be independent or middle of the road while being clearly alt-right.
Actually, your comment: "The SCOTUS ruled that 'Pro-Life' protestors had a Constitutional right to protest outside of clinician's homes" was the deflection. I provided the relevant law to this discussion.
You've got so much more:
And, these individuals are members of a conservative COLLECTIVE.
And other individuals are into labeling people.
Prove me wrong about any of it. Or, just. . . continue redirecting 'traffic.'
What will you accept as standards of proof?
Bullshit. My comment was in reply to Greg's comment imagining that 'liberal homes' were doxed. Pro-life activists did just that and organized protests outside the homes of employees of clinics. The SCOTUS ruled that they had the right to do so.
Actually, it isn't relevant to doxing, which is the predicate of this tread.
Secondly, the home addresses of Justices isn't 'private' information so no 'doxing' happened.
Before Kavanaugh was confirmed, there were multiple stories about him, his family and their home in Chevy Chase, including pictures of the house, media interviews from their home, interviews with neighbors. If Kavanaugh wanted to keep his residence secret, he did a shitty job of it.
I suppose some folks can pretend that there is no difference in protesting at a member of SCOTUS' residences or workplace and protesting at private citizens homes and workplaces.
And some of us can recognize laws.
The correct term is now Ultra MEGA. You didn't get the memo?
If they are breaking the law, yes. You don't think people that break the law should be held accountable?
Neither I nor the law I cited said anything about doxing.
So what case is this?
Redirecting, is not proof of anything.
You don't appear interested in proof.
He asked specifically what proof you would accept, and once again you deflected, and then tried to claim he deflected.
We see your posts, you know.
You should probably alert these con -law experts. You apparently found a case that they missed.
Redirecting? I asked you "What will you accept as standards of proof", and you haven't replied. Im not going to play go fish with you.
You ask a lot of unessential bull patty. I would ask you how 'old' you are, but that would be inappropriate. And so, I won't. If carrying on like this, is how some conservatives get pleasure nowadays - go for it!
You asked me to prove something to you. I'm not going to waste my time in doing that unless I know what you will accept as proof.
I bet whatever you show that prove him wrong will be ignored, and you'll be accused of bull-patty-ing or worse!
No worries. Try truth.
Exactly, I'm not worried.
Yea, truth. You asked me to prove than an unidentified group of individuals aren't members of a conservative COLLECTIVE. Name the members and what you would accept as proof that they aren't working together in an organization.
And hear I was beginning to wonder if you understood the scope of what is being asked for—you do! How you would prove you are not part of a conservative collective is beyond me, because there is sufficient circumstantial information on these articles and this thread illustrating some conservatives are in a 'pack' formation.
These members are not "unidentified" to you as you find consensus with them as a matter of routine in discussion. Additionally, they complete your thoughts in discussion as you do for them. That is 'organization.'
It's even larger than NT. As you take republican party positions 99.99 percent of the time along with some conservatives—little to no daylight between you and them on a majority of issues.
You make up numbers to look like you've done analysis instead of admitting to your bias.
BTW, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
You don't have to worry about my bias, since we are discussing a conservative collective. . . .
We really aren't discussing anything. I usually just reply to your homemade versions of aphorisms, cliches, and idioms with an obtuse or not so obtuse snide remark. I never really know how better to respond because when I've tried, we keep changing the tangent.
Well that's full of shit and you can empty it anytime you wish by just flushing, washing up, and going about your day! Easy-peasy. Oh, and of course, we've all seen your 'Tom & Jerry' routine for weeks running now. Saw (back) then this fakery for what is it today.
I'll keep being Jerry if you keep being Tom.
Me: clever and spunky.
Have you failed to note that your compatriots are claiming that they ARE breaking the law merely because of the fact that they are 'picketing and parading'?
IF they are breaking the law, yes.
"Equal Justice Under Law" is carved on the edifice of the SC building.
Do you support using the law against one side of the political spectrum while giving the other a pass? Because that is what would be happening if they arrest and prosecute 'some' who 'picket and parade' and not others.
That's on you.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
So what case is this?
Madsen did not rule "that 'Pro-Life' protestors had a Constitutional right to protest outside of clinician's homes."
You should retract your comment as misinformation
The Supreme Court case you claim "ruled that 'Pro-Life' protestors had a Constitutional right to protest outside of clinician's homes." You seem to be the only person in the world who believes it exists.
Your inability to understand the case doesn't make it misinformation Sean.
That comment isn't responsive Sean.
What case is that?
What's on me?
Another obtuse comment. You're on a roll.
Surely you can understand the meaning of that short, simple question.
My favorite part of that obtuse article:
So, the posit is that 'public sidewalks' ARE 'public forums' but it 'would seem unlikely that a 'public road' would be considered a 'public forum'.
Sadly, all too many here merely swill the BS served to them.
From US v. Grace:
Guess your 'experts' don't want anyone to actually READ the cases they are hanging their hats on...
Again, I understood it perfectly. Hence my characterization that it is obtuse.
I don't know how to ask it more plainly, but no worries. Your answer probably wouldn't be important anyway.
Not to someone as important as you, right?
Important, goodness no. I'm just an old, white, male, tireless government servant.
you really need a thesaurus.
'public sidewalks' ARE 'public forums'
Lol. you managed somehow managed to avoid this " In 1988’s Frisby v. Schultz , the court upheld a local Wisconsin law that banned protesting targeted at a specific home, as long as protesters were allowed to march through a neighborhood." So yes, there's a difference between the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court and picketing a home on a residential street. Hard to believe that's necessary to point out.
Moreover, you completely ignore the intent requirement in the statute at issue, that did not exist in the Grace case. Do you need that explained?
Details matter.
From US v. Grac
Again, Grace deals with protests at a Courthouse, not in front of a private home like the Frisby case (which you bizarrely ignored). Which do you think is more relevant when talking about protesting in front of a private home?
Guess your 'experts' don't want anyone to actually READ the cases they are hanging their hats on.
They aren't "my experts." They are the ones chosen by the Washington Post, a pro abortion left wing source. Do you even wonder why a left wing source isn't citing the argument you are trying to make?
Do you really think that you made a point when you needed to truncate my comment Sean?
I didn't avoid anything Sean. I merely cited my favorite part of your link.
Perhaps in Brookfield, Wisconsin, that's true. Do Chevy Chase or Alexandria have like statutes Sean? If they do, why weren't people arrested?
Hard to believe that's necessary to point out.
Hey, I just quoted YOUR link Sean. Why do you insist that I address the part YOU want and ignore the part I liked?
No shit.
Again Sean, I address content from the link YOU posted. If you have an issue with the author including the Grace case, bring it up with him.
The title of the link YOU posted is "Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes appear to be illegal
The argument I made in the post you replied to is largely achieved by block quoting from the source YOU linked. The link to Grace is in the article.
Oh and BTFW Sean, I don't need others to make arguments for me. As the post your replied to illustrates, I do just fine on my own.
That's my mistake. I keep assuming you are trying to make a good faith argument rather than just throwing shit at the wall and some gullible fools are tricked are tricked into thinking you made a substantive point. For instance, when I address the legal arguments for abortion, I address Roe and Casey. I don't ignore them and use a portion of a distinguishable case to make a silly argument anyone whose paying attention would see right through.
So, good for you. You cited an irrelevant argument that has no bearing on how the issue will be decided. Kudos to you!
aps in Brookfield, Wisconsin, that's true. Do Chevy Chase or Alexandria have like statutes
Now this is where come to suspect you performing some sort of comedy routine to see how ridiculous an argument you can make and expect people to respond to you.
Do you imagine the justices live outside the jurisdiction of the US? Are you unable to recall the US Statue posted just a few posts above? The literal fucking article we are discussing is explicitly explaining that specific statute and you somehow just ignore the statute's existence and imagine local ordinances are now the subject. It's actually amazing to see someone argue so dishonestly.
I simply refuse to believe you need the connection explained between Frisby, which upheld a ban against protesting at specific homes, and the US Statute that prohibits protesting at judicial residences.
You can never really win an argument with an internet lawyer, as they simply will ignore any inconvenient facts that don't support their "argument".
Well gee Sean, if I just threw shit at the wall, you should have easily refuted my context of my comment. As members can see for themselves, you failed to do so and instead post personal comments about ME. Seems that's an MO of late.
Again Sean, I block quoted from YOUR link. If you have an issue with its inclusion in the discussion, your argument is with the author of YOUR link.
Fuck off Sean.
from the seed:
“…many Democratic politicians and pundits continue to follow the mob rather than risk its ire.”
Ironic does not begin to describe the disconnect from the reality in which so many wish to ignore.
Fear and ignorance rule the day…to no one’s benefit.
And they do it to continue receiving the votes.
That's all that counts.
“And they do it to continue receiving the votes.”
They meaning all. Time to blow up the entrenched two-party system. More voices, more choices.
Democrats want to rule by intimidation and whining the loudest and longest. It is what they are best at so they go with their strong suit.
As long as some conservatives make attempts at fear and loathing of liberals they will not find happiness.
Coming from someone who regularly abuses "some conservatives", that is funny!
Pay no attention to the whiners.
They're always whining that they're victims somehow.
That they're abused.
Who said they were abused?
What comment was it?
Sounds like something you made up.
Tedious bull pattiers, indeed! I can't know who is getting a paycheck or a benefit to be here, that is online promulgating obfuscation and time-consuming bull patty, but considering conservatives' propensity for turning into profit the most lamest of opportunities, I have my suspicions this is possibly occurring on NT and other forums.
Sounds like another far-left conspiracy theory-- unsupported, of course with any FACTS.
Most people call them Liberals / Leftist / Democrats.
Sounds like you are whining about fictional whiners.
Astro-turfing is real. I am going to do an article on it.
Seems like some here just get paid by the syllable
Will you be including facts?
Should be fun. Every time a politician opens their mouth they are trying to tell us what Americans support when in reality they have no clue. They only know what their minions tell them what Americans support based on their lame interpretation of even lamer polls.
Facts only get in the way
And who are you in the larger scheme of this?
An individual
And that causes you to excel how in the larger scheme of knowledge and understanding? What I mean, is being an individual supposed to make you impervious to being bull pattied?
I see it as a hierarchy. First we require data, relational, interoperable dats across the entirety of our enterprises. A data fabric if you will. From that data we can derive relevant and timely information. That information coupled with experience provides the knowledge that we seek. Wisdom is obtained by those that have the ability to use perspective and make sound judgements with that knowledge, instead of just knowing.
No matter whether you are at the knowledge level or have obtained wisdom, you can avoid being bull pattied.
Being able to see and analyze data without any preconceived notions or bias allows me to be less apt to fall for the bs.
You said it better than I did
Well that explains your right down the center - republican political leaning, then! /s
Did you just dazzle some of us with bull patty? For instance, does hierarchism contrast with individualism?
If you say so. /s
I am just kidding with you, "Right Down the Center"! /s
I don’t know, are you easily dazzled?
Perhaps as a paradox. Do more developed societies (hierarchical) also prize individualism more than less develop ones?
I am not included in the "some of us" category. And you should tell me what you think about hierarchy since you brought it into discussion. Especially since it creates what conservatives of the moment rail against: elites! Though today's conservatives have their leaders. . . .
Is that the result of self-identification?
I think that it is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority, such as in our military.
Stall much?
Hope not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And you and Jeremy are part of the club.
Whining about a whining club....priceless
And here I thought that they were called christians.
After all, religion is based on a feeling of persecution.
Is that what Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton feel?
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,”
"Court" if you want to play really obtuse.
More of the infamous left-wing "tolerance"?
Then they start crying when the violence they call for backfires on them.
"American Rage Addiction" is fueled by Putin's propaganda machine.
When Putin goes down all of this will fade away like a fart in a hailstorm.
When Putin goes down all of this will fade away like a fart in a hailstorm.
Yea, and the inflation is transitory
Don't be a sucker. Or a fool. The payoff is nil.
Blaming Putin for everything is proof of that
All this rage we're allegedly guilty of.
Pffft.
I agree, letting men compete in women's sports is a disgusting war on women.
Did you know there are more pro life women than men?
How stupid.
Yep, letting men compete in women's sports brought back women's sports decades.
It doesn't really surprise me that more women are pro life than men though.
Moronic
Hopefully women will rally against the democrats war on women. Just calling them names probably won't be enough to kick men out of women's sports.
Your need to get the last word and being so trifling over nothing is quite tiresome.
The war on women is not a small thing. Sorry if you are tired. Espresso will help.
AH, yes, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" through constant insults!
Good job, make more fence sitters see what you really think of voters!
Sounds like a winning strategy!
Got to be a better one than touting the Biden economy!
So to paraphrase a bumbling fool "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for dem or repub, then you ain’t a woman.'
Paraphrasing LBJ, 'The gop just lost the women's vote for a generation'...
Keep the dream alive!!
You think abortion is a bigger issue than the Biden inflation-ravaged economy?
Lots of women still vote republican. Comments like yours will help that number grow. Keep up the good work.
Was that the same LBJ that decided not to run in 68 and let HHH get beat instead?
Ya figure women are as stupid as you and Madeline Albright think - where there's a special place in hell ...?
Don't try to kid us, we all know that you are unfatigable.
Another one with last word itis
Fight it, I have faith.
You continue proving that nothing can wear you out.
You have faith in shit.
Your word doesn't mean dick.
That's telling him.
Of course I believe in shit. If you don't shit it will lead to serious problems. Of course my word doesn't mean dick. It is so much more than that. Obsession with shit and dick is interesting 🤔 though.
Those that do nothing but flap lips usually are.
That's all you do - flap your lips.
Fact free lips.
Okay kids you can have the last word for now.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
You are irresistible to them. Like honey to the bees...
I always love to see a liberal with a sense of humor, it is such a rare thing.
I draw them. I understand the appeal though!
I draw them. I understand the appeal though!
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I see those who voted you up obviously find me appealing.
You appeal across the diversity of NT.
Making stuff up again I see.
Apparently, while you are allowed to see your appeal, my agreeing with you is considered taunting.
I hope you are not trying to insinuate there are different rules for different people! You think this is Twitter or something?
It seems that you can’t escape the hierarchy or class structures anywhere.
Me thinks thou doth protests too much!
I”ll bet that you’re a big hit at your local Renaissance Faire.
Good to hear you are thinking.
threads 13 & 14 locked, slap fighting and petty insults
Nothing abnormal about that.
You got that right.