It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.


Recommended Posts

As the topic says.  I know many are rejoicing, but as I've stated in the past, this has grave ramifications regarding precedence and laws based upon this.

It appears that at the core of the issue is the right to privacy, which seems to be what will be attacked in order to justify what is logically the next steps.

On the side for Evangelical Religion Followers (which, I may remind the forum, overall have been hostile to the Church over the past 40 years, and eventually in the worst case could use the legal gap left after a reduction of the right to privacy to actually attack the church as well as it's beliefs), this could be a boon as it opens the way to also take down Gay Marriage in the same pattern (though I think they should have gone after Gay Marriage first, in theory as it is newer it should have been an easier target.  If Roe v. Wade falls this easily though, it should be no problem to target Gay Marriage with the same result rather quickly...IF they so desire).

On the darker side, it also paves the way to do away with certain Civil Rights (interracial marriage for starters) as well as other items such as the right to not allow others to access your phone (though in theory, that was already weakened greatly by the patriot act).

I know many Conservatives are happy to hear what seems to be coming out soon.  If Gay Rights are repealed to a degree as well (such as Gay Marriage) they will also probably be thrilled.  However, the way this has been done (as I said, should have gone after Gay Marriage first, it was a lower hanging fruit and they would not have had to produce such a drastic backing for why they repealed it as they have with the incoming ruling on Roe vs. Wade, and it would have paved a way for an easier and less drastic reasoning for repealing Roe vs. Wade...in my opinion) it also opens the way for more drastic measures, even if done on a state level.

I don't recall what the years were like for the Church between 1900 and 1940, but I knew many that did.  It was a harsh time for the Church.  Financially they were still trying to recover by the 60s, and it was still a tough time.  It probably wasn't until the late 70s and the early 80s that the Church fully had recovered and started to boom again.  I fear that the WAY and LOGIC they have used to undermine and repeal Roe vs. Wade will also be a key factor later for them to utilize similar laws to allow states to institute regulations hostile to religions that are not part of the mainstream of the state (so, no fears in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and such, but in the South...it could turn nasty). 

I know many on the far right and hardline right religionists and Evangelicals are probably rejoicing at the surprising turn of events (or at least those that seem to be imminent at this point), but the MANNER in which it is being done, I'm not so sure is a good thing for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those unfamiliar with what @JohnsonJones is referencing, the Casey case (the other landmark abortion case that cemented Roe) was ruled on the basis of the 14th amendment. Since no State can abridge anyone’s liberty, they cannot violate a person’s autonomy. This was the basis for decisions about biracial marriage, prison marriage, use of contraceptives, living with relatives, parental authority over their child’s education, the right to turn down medical procedures (including forced sterilization), consensual sex acts, and same-sex marriage.

I don’t know where JJ is getting the idea that Southern Baptists will have license to attack us with the law. Perhaps he could clarify that.

I don’t think his concern is valid that the other rights the Court found in the 14th amendment will be threatened by this decision. For starters, all but the last two were established before Casey — they aren’t dependent on that case for their judicial doctrine. Second, this ruling doesn’t erode the interpretation of the 14th amendment that these cases stand on. SCOTUS says what was missing in Roe was evidence that abortion was considered a right at any point before the decision. Roe failed in the historical department but most if not all of these other cases will show that there was some notion of parental rights, marriage rights, sex rights, etc. This is why the 14th amendment wasn’t applied in the assisted suicide case. There is no history in common law or American law for a person to have the right to end their own life. So they kicked it back to the legislatures. Finally, one thing all these other cases have in common (even the suicide one and the two post-Casey ones) is consent among all the parties involved. This is not the case for abortion.

What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: abortion destroys what those decisions call “potential life” and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an “unborn human being”. None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefor inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, the conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.

EDIT: You know, I think that last paragraph is convincing enough I’ll email my local SCOTUS and see if they’ll add it to their decision.

EDIT EDIT: see page 32 of https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS.  I'm not predicting they will.  I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised to hear it happening soon.

The pro-abortion protesters are showing their true colors on just how rude, arrogant, and crazy they can be.  It doesn't take much to push that one over the edge. They are all ready to kill an unborn baby.  And they shoved, punched, and tripped pro-life protesters when they clashed earlier this week.  If they do that to a "commoner", what do you think they'd do if they happened to come across a Justice? 

And I also wouldn't be surprised if they are so uneducated on the issues that they couldn't tell the difference between which justices voted for which side.  Then they end up assassinating the wrong side due to ignorance.  And a pro-life person will be blamed.

At the same time, I can't help but believe that this is really a long game hail Mary by Democrats.  I can't really wrap my head around Roberts voting for this.  After all the middle-of-the-road things he has sided with the liberal justices on, I'm having trouble believing it.

What makes more sense is that the Dems KNEW they were going to lose big time in the mid-terms.  And they are also bracing for a return of Trump in '24.  They're losing on virtually every other front.  So, abortion is the only thing they can think of to rally the liberal base of voters.  That is what they're hoping for.

The severe miscalculation is that most minority voters don't care about abortion.  Almost every black person I know personally (even the liberal ones) think that abortion is an abomination.  Latinos that I know are mostly very religious -- and lean heavily toward Catholicism.  They certainly don't like the idea of abortions.  And I've never known any adult Asians who care for abortion. But I've known some of he upcoming generation that are for it.

I don't think that the abortion voter is going to save them.  If they win, it will be because of something else.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS.  I'm not predicting they will.  I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised to hear it happening soon.

The pro-abortion protesters are showing their true colors on just how rude, arrogant, and crazy they can be.  It doesn't take much to push that one over the edge. They are all ready to kill an unborn baby.  And they shoved, punched, and tripped pro-life protesters when they clashed earlier this week.  If they do that to a "commoner", what do you think they'd do if they happened to come across a Justice? 

You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

100% correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

Yes, actually.  Exactly like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, actually.  Exactly like them.

I would say 99.5% like them.

Vigilanteism is wrong—maybe not quite all the time, but pretty darned close to it.  And it’s certainly not justified in cases like this.  But . . . 

The guys who killed the abortionists, generally acted as a result of the notions that a) abortion is killing, and b) citizens are justified in killing killers.

A leftist assassin would be acting as a result of the notion that citizens are justified in killing people who pose an inconvenience to their personal sex lives.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would say 99.5% like them.

Vigilanteism is wrong—maybe not quite all the time, but pretty darned close to it.  And it’s certainly not justified in cases like this.  But . . . 

The guys who killed the abortionists, generally acted as a result of the notions that a) abortion is killing, and b) citizens are justified in killing killers.

A leftist assassin would be acting as a result of the notion that citizens are justified in killing people who pose an inconvenience to their personal sex lives.

Yes, I was thinking about that.  But I was trying to exercise restraint.

Now that it's out there, I also believe that another difference is that whoever does this..

a) the liberal media will fall all over themselves trying to show sympathy and justification.  Admitting it was wrong without actually condemning them.

b) nevermind.   I'll exercise restraint. :)

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we are going to see (or at least hope we don't) vigilantism against the Supreme Court. 

I've thought about some of this stuff over the past few days. 

I DO think that some of the Liberal groups that have been dancing in victory are going into shock right now.  They don't know what hit them.

They had been so full of themselves in believing that nothing could stop them, they never stopped to look at the tide or smell the coffee (or hot chocolate...as we are members of the Church). 

Instead of securing their foundation which was built on the laws stemming from ideas form the 1990s cases regarding Abortion, they went about trying to force everyone else to do their bidding. 

They should have been looking at where the court and the arguments were heading LONG before Trump took office.  Trump in many ways was a violent reaction from some to the Judicial Activism of Obama and many on the Left.  When it comes to Transgender rights, some of those things being pushed I think were turning a LOT of people off to the message.

This is retribution.

The Right has come for them and the entire house could destabilize and fall at this point.  If the left keeps pushing for Transgender fringe rights more than looking at the things they are using to prop up their arguments, they could find everything that they have gained over the past 50 years is gone very quickly. 

This SHOULD be a wakeup call for them.  Whether it will or not remains to be seen.

If they DO wake up and reassemble to rebuilding the foundation, I think you'll see them solidify around trying to build back up a case that is stronger than before regarding why abortion should be allowed, and from that why other rights built upon that same foundation should be allowed.

If not, I'm predicting right now that we'll see the end of Gay Marriage, and possibly the end of many of the other advances in some of those arenas dealing with equality.  It could even boil back to stripping some of the ideas and laws regarding our Civil Rights for racial equality (for example, laws which require percentages of minorities in certain areas be hired or allowed in, or laws or representation...etc). 

IF we get to that point, where laws regarding certain allowances for Minorities or disabled or others, it is a small leap from there to ending some of the laws that also demanded equality and non-discrimination for religious practices.  It depends on how far right we go, and how far the really far right is willing to push it, and IF the rest of the Right will allow them to go that far in their push to do away with some of the laws we have had for decades built upon the same ideas of precedence that the laws pertaining to abortion were based upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2022 at 11:37 PM, Carborendum said:

I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS....

 

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, actually.  Exactly like them.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"

 

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would say 99.5% like them.

Vigilanteism is wrong—maybe not quite all the time, but pretty darned close to it.  And it’s certainly not justified in cases like this.  But . . . 

The guys who killed the abortionists, generally acted as a result of the notions that a) abortion is killing, and b) citizens are justified in killing killers.

A leftist assassin would be acting as a result of the notion that citizens are justified in killing people who pose an inconvenience to their personal sex lives.

Fixed it. 

There's no "but" to any of this. Any political vigilante assassin, regardless of political affiliations or motivations, suffers from the delusion that they have the right to judge which lives are worth sparing and which are worth exterminating. I think it's fair to explore the motivations of vigilantes that have committed violence in the interest of understanding how they got to where they were (presumably in order to explore ways to prevent such actions from occurring in the future). Speculating on the motivations of a hypothetical vigilante is a cheap shot against people you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"

You can blame anyone you want to blame. That's entirely up to you.  Just don't misquote me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Could you elaborate on what exactly I've misquoted?

Not a quote.  But could be used as a quote.

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"

I never said any such thing.  It is not my business who you blame.  That's up to you.  I also can't say who you can't blame.  That's up to you.

If you say anything to the effect "Hey, Carb said that I can..."  No, I didn't.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.  Let me rephrase the question then:

Under the same logic, to which conservative groups should we be assigning the blame for the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

There's no "but" to any of this. . . .

Speculating on the motivations of a hypothetical vigilante is a cheap shot against people you disagree with.

 As is suggesting that members of a mainstream political movement are responsible for the activities of their moonbat fringe.

But as-written, I don’t think my point was that far off.

The fact is, the pro-choice position is rooted in the notion that humans (particularly, women) have an inalienable right to consequence-free sex, which by virtue of their positions of power over wholly dependent third-parties supersedes those third parties’ rights to life itself.  It is a conjunction of “sex uber alles” and “might makes right”; neither of which in and of themselves are recipes for well-ordered liberty or a non-violent, law-abiding society.

And . . . There’s always a “but”, as Antifa/BLM apologists made clear when they offered excuses for the chuckleheads who were running around terrorizing other civilians and setting up insurrectionist “autonomous zones” through threat of brute force.  I haven’t looked up the numbers to confirm, but I’d feel reasonably safe in suggesting that more black children were killed by abortion in the last fifty years of this country’s history, than were enslaved in the first eighty years of this country’s history.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As is suggesting that members of a mainstream political movement are responsible for the activities of their moonbat fringe.

Agreed.  Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make.

Quote

The fact is, the pro-choice position is rooted in the notion that humans (particularly, women) have an inalienable right to consequence-free sex which trumps a third-party’s right to life itself.

That isn't entirely accurate. Roe v. Wade did impose restrictions on that right, afterall.  In fact, I'd say that it made a reasonable effort to balance the conflict between the right of the woman to bodily autonomy and the rights of the fetus. But regardless, even Roe recognized it as an alienable right. And the pro-choice movement at large seems to be content with that placement of alieneability.  (making up new forms of alienable is kind of fun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That isn't entirely accurate. Roe v. Wade did impose restrictions on that right, afterall.  In fact, I'd say that it made a reasonable effort to balance the conflict between the right of the woman to bodily autonomy and the rights of the fetus. But regardless, even Roe recognized it as an alienable right. And the pro-choice movement at large seems to be content with that placement of alieneability.  (making up new forms of alienable is kind of fun)

Of course, Roe magnificently ignored the fact that the vast majority of abortions are the result of a woman (together with a male partner, to be sure) exercising her autonomy through voluntary sexual intercourse.  

And as the proposed Dobbs opinion points out, there is no constitutional right to unfettered bodily autonomy.  My right to bodily autonomy doesn’t mean I have a right to rape; and the Supreme Court has no duty (or even prerogative) to honor and “balance” my right to bodily autonomy by arbitrarily imposing a regimen in which I can “only” rape a female during the first trimester of her anticipated existence.  Roe basically created a right out of whole cloth, and breezily justified it by resurrecting the Dred Scott explanation that the third-parties who were harmed by exercise of this novel “right” were, constitutionally speaking, not really people at all.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But as the proposed Dobbs opinion points out, there is no constitutional right to unfettered bodily autonomy.  My right to bodily autonomy doesn’t mean I have a right to rape; and the Supreme Court has no need to “balance” my right to bodily autonomy arbitrarily imposing a regimen in which I can “only” rape a woman during the first trimester of her anticipated existence.  Roe basically created a right out of whole cloth, and breezily justified it by resurrecting the Dred Scott explanation that the third-parties who were harmed by exercise of this novel “right” were, constitutionally speaking, not really people at all.

This is not an interpretation of Roe that I'm familiar with. My understanding was that it was decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment (which, curiously, overturned the Dred Scott ruling)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This is not an interpretation of Roe that I'm familiar with. My understanding was that it was decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment (which, curiously, overturned the Dred Scott ruling)

It was certainly a tragic feat of verbal jiujitsu, taking an amendment that ended the practice of constitutionally dehumanizing one group of powerless people, and using it to constitutionally dehumanize an entirely other group of powerless people.

The 14th Amendment talks about the privileges and immunities of US citizenship being extended to all citizens, enunciates a right to equal protection, and reiterates that life, liberty and property may only be abridged through due process of law.  It certainly doesn’t enunciate abortion as a privilege or immunity of citizenship; and Dobbs points out that “liberty” is not an absolute and that courts have traditionally pointed to “well ordered liberty”, which necessarily entails some degree of constraint on human behavior.

Roe purported to be extending a right-to-privacy as elucidated in (if memory serves) the Grizwold line of cases which included things like interracial marriage, contraception, etc.  But as Dobbs pointed out, none of these behaviors butted up against a third-party’s interests in (potential) life itself.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read the leaked Dobbs opinion, JAG? If so, what did you think? I was stunned by how clear and convincing Alito's prose was. I was simultaneously delighted with Alito's writing and outraged by what he set out as the unbelievably poor reasoning and machinations of the 1973 Supreme Court.

I know that I should be more upset that someone leaked this. I do think that's a real and present threat to the Supreme Court's autonomy. Having said that, I'm very happy to have been able to read that opinion. I'm not grateful to the people who exposed it, but I am happy to have been able to sneak a peek at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It was certainly a tragic feat of verbal jiujitsu, taking an amendment that ended the practice of constitutionally dehumanizing one group of powerless people, and using it to constitutionally dehumanize an entirely other group of powerless people.

The 14th Amendment talks about the privileges and immunities of US citizenship being extended to all citizens, enunciates a right to equal protection, and reiterates that life, liberty and property may only be abridged through due process of law.  It certainly doesn’t enunciate abortion as a privilege or immunity of citizenship; and Dobbs points out that “liberty” is not an absolute and that courts have traditionally pointed to “well ordered liberty”, which necessarily entails some degree of constraint on human behavior.

Roe purported to be extending a right-to-privacy as elucidated in (if memory serves) the Grizwold line of cases which included things like interracial marriage, contraception, etc.  But as Dobbs pointed out, none of these behaviors butted up against a third-party’s interests in (potential) life itself.

That's an interesting line of thinking. I'll have to think on that one.  It seems in my head I've made the mistake of considering abortion to be concerned of the parties of the mother and the fetus. I've never considered the fetus to be the third party.

One the one hand, historically, my understanding is that it was uncommon for people to consider fetuses a "person" at the time Roe was decided. But that doesn't necessarily carry over to the present. Afterall, the Fourteenth amendment was necessary specifically because of the once prevailing notion that those with black skin weren't "persons." Social progressivism, and all.  

So I guess this opens up the "personhood" argument again.  I've never liked the idea of granting personhood at conception. There's so much instability and weirdness in the early weeks of pregnancy. That isn't to say that I don't consider early pregnancy fetuses of value, but I do still see potential for conflicts between parental interests and the unborn. But once again, I'm in the mindset of the fetus not being the third party.  

I'm rambling...give me a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Have you read the leaked Dobbs opinion, JAG? If so, what did you think? I was stunned by how clear and convincing Alito's prose was. I was simultaneously delighted with Alito's writing and outraged by what he set out as the unbelievably poor reasoning and machinations of the 1973 Supreme Court.

I know that I should be more upset that someone leaked this. I do think that's a real and present threat to the Supreme Court's autonomy. Having said that, I'm very happy to have been able to read that opinion. I'm not grateful to the people who exposed it, but I am happy to have been able to sneak a peek at it.

I have read it.  The reasoning is persuasive to me, though of course I’m hardly unbiased.  There were parts that did feel a little polemic in tone, and it also left me with a nagging feeling that some things that should have been said were not said—though I can’t quite put my finger on what, precisely, that ought to have been.  The opinion also, I thought, gave more credit to the rest of the Grizwold line of cases than I thought it deserved; maybe that’s what’s bugging me.  I don’t disagree with the policy results of most of the Grizwold-line cases (Obergefell being the obvious exception), but I don’t like how SCOTUS has constitutionalized everything and I guess I’d rather see a more sweeping defense of judicial restraint and a broader willingness to return political issues to the political decision-making process for resolution. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That's an interesting line of thinking. I'll have to think on that one.  It seems in my head I've made the mistake of considering abortion to be concerned of the parties of the mother and the fetus. I've never considered the fetus to be the third party.

One the one hand, historically, my understanding is that it was uncommon for people to consider fetuses a "person" at the time Roe was decided. But that doesn't necessarily carry over to the present. Afterall, the Fourteenth amendment was necessary specifically because of the once prevailing notion that those with black skin weren't "persons." Social progressivism, and all.  

So I guess this opens up the "personhood" argument again.  I've never liked the idea of granting personhood at conception. There's so much instability and weirdness in the early weeks of pregnancy. That isn't to say that I don't consider early pregnancy fetuses of value, but I do still see potential for conflicts between parental interests and the unborn. But once again, I'm in the mindset of the fetus not being the third party.  

I'm rambling...give me a few days.

Yeah, a big part of Dobbs goes towards arguing that Roe’s summation of the history of attitudes on the fetus were inaccurate.  It’s definitely worth reading.

I would agree with you that I don’t think, as a moral/theological matter, that life begins at conception.  But as a matter of policy, I don’t know where else we can draw it without creating grave logical consequences for other groups of vulnerable people (later-term pregnancies, newborns, people with varying degrees of cognitive dysfunction, people in vegetative states who may not recover (and those who may yet recover), etc).  There’s been a lot of talk about “viability”, but the fact is that all life is non-viable when taken outside of its natural environment (“Your Honor, I didn’t kill my wife; I just submerged her in water/ deprived her of oxygen/ put her in a place that happened to be very cold/ put her in a place that happened to be very hot/ put her in a place that lacked access to food or water/ opened her body and let her bleed out/ introduced her to a substance that happened to stop her heart.  If she’s been truly viable, her body would have continued to function and she would still be with us today.  So I haven’t really done anything wrong here.”)

If pregnancy were something that “just happens” to people on a statistically large scale, I’d probably be more worried that a regimen that bans elective abortion as early as conception was overbroad.  But pregnancy doesn’t “just happen”; and in the small minority of cases where pregnancy results from involuntary action I believe that the better approach is to let abortion be legally justified on involuntary servitude/self-defense grounds if indeed the victim feels unable to carry the child to term.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 4:57 AM, MarginOfError said:

[Carb: "I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS"]

You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

Dear is a fun fellow.  That thing happened down the road from where I work.  I know some of the cops who took him down.  The one who drove the armored van through the planned parenthood front door tells me he is managing to not be woken up by the nightmares as much any more.  A few months ago he was still being ruled not mentally competent to stand trial.  

But @Carborendum's comment was specifically about the possibility of leftist groups deciding to harm SCOTUS or their families.  You are responding with examples of right wing (or mentally ill portrayed as right wing) violence.   So I'll take a shot at answering you:  No, MOE, NOT like the right wing anti-abortion murderers.   

More like the violent left wing idealogues and groups like the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army.  Where Kathy Boudin was convicted of the murder of two cops and a security guard, where she was paroled, and eventually became an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work, where she was the co-director and co-founder of the Center for Justice at Columbia University.  

Or the anti-Trump leftist James Hodgkinson who attempted to massacre a Republican baseball team getting ready to play for charity. 

Or the BLM supporter Darrell Brooks who drove his SUV through a crowd of old white ladies, killing six and sending 100 to the hospital right after the Rittenhouse verdict.  

Or Frank R. James, the arrested suspect who allegedly carried out the April 12th New York City Subway attack, with a social media full of violent BLM and Black Liberation Army stuff.

Or Quintez Brown, social justice activist, arrested for shooting up Mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg at his own campaign headquarters.  Fortunately only his clothing was grazed. 

 

So yeah, I echo Carb's concern about violence directed at SCOTUS.  Especially with abortion activists releasing the home addresses of 6 of the justices, saying things like "We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics."  (I'm not linking to this one, because the doxxed addresses are still there.  Folks can search it up yourselves if you're interested.)

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share