Jump to content


Photo

Moms Demand and friends to intimidate at SCOTUS tomorrow


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 01 December 2019 - 10:22 PM

always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage.

OKAlZRG.jpg
flNooJk.jpg

You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did?

https://www.chicagot...d3hy-story.html

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.
The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.


Edited by steveTA84, 01 December 2019 - 10:24 PM.


#2 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:39 AM

So, this would essentially be a conspiracy to apply pressure on the Judicial Branch of the Government to not make a ruling based on the interpretation of the law, the language of the Constitution, and precedent, but instead based solely on the political ideology and viewpoint of the people .

 

The operative intent being a conspiracy to act in such a fashion.

 

Hmm. How is that not illegal?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#3 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:10 AM

...
Hmm. How is that not illegal?


They're not threatening the institution of the court or any of its members. If they intend for some of their members to attend the oral arguments (which is possible for members of the public) and protest in the courtroom, they'll get ejected very quickly. Things like cameras, cell phones, signs, banners, buckets of pig blood, etc., won't even be allowed in the room. The clothes on their backs, a pad of paper, and a pen are about the only things allowed for the public.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#4 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 02 December 2019 - 06:11 AM

MDA: We're not anti-gun, we just agree with NYC that you should be forced to keep your gun in the your own home in NYC.



#5 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 07:14 AM

5uVdmAO.jpg
hux3oEA.jpg
YqUMNad.jpg

#6 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:01 AM

BTW, who wants to bet that Roberts screws us??

#7 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:16 AM

Roberts voted with Heller and I don't think he's at risk here. 



#8 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:20 AM

 

...
Hmm. How is that not illegal?


They're not threatening the institution of the court or any of its members. If they intend for some of their members to attend the oral arguments (which is possible for members of the public) and protest in the courtroom, they'll get ejected very quickly. Things like cameras, cell phones, signs, banners, buckets of pig blood, etc., won't even be allowed in the room. The clothes on their backs, a pad of paper, and a pen are about the only things allowed for the public.

 

 

I was referring to this, actually, but it would also apply if the MDA actually makes any threats against the court somehow:

 

Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.

The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#9 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,780 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:20 AM

The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section.
It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#10 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:32 AM

The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “



What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals.

#11 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,575 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:55 AM

 

The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “



What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals.

 

 

Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.



#12 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:02 AM

The Chicago Libune printed Bloombergs opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically vote for me as President and Ill appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA

What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals.
 
Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.
Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day.....

Attached Thumbnails

  • CE751F83-F518-45DA-AE24-6E5414CECBB8.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84, 02 December 2019 - 09:03 AM.


#13 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,575 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:06 AM

 

 

 

What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals.
 
Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.
Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day.....

 

 

 

He's already had his influence. Few Democrats dare to run nationally on a pro-gun message directly because of him, for fear of being primaried. He's gotten what he wants, by paying for it, and using threats and intimidation.



#14 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:09 AM

[quote name="Raw Power" post="1240316" timestamp="1575299181"][quote name="steveTA84" post="1240315" timestamp="1575298976"]
[quote name="Raw Power" post="1240309" timestamp="1575298516"]
[quote name="steveTA84" post="1240307" timestamp="1575297137"]
What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals.[/quote]
 
Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.[/quote]
Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day.....
[/quote]
 
 
He's already had his influence. Few Democrats dare to run nationally on a pro-gun message directly because of him, for fear of being primaried. He's gotten what he wants, by paying for it, and using threats and intimidation.[/quote]

True. It’s a shame too, as if Dems ran on a real pro-2A message (not “I support the 2nd, but.....) they’d be in a much better position. Bloomberg and Soros have poisoned the DNC to the point where they’re no better than the ones they claim to hate

#15 KingWalleye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:09 PM

I just saw a YouTube video of the lawyers who were representing the NRA and they said there were no protesters there.

#16 45Badger

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,289 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:10 PM

Not sure they need to be. https://www.cnbc.com...gun-rights.html To early to tell, but early signs are decidedly neutral. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9mm = 45ACP set on "stun"
.45 ACP - Because Shooting Twice Is Silly!

.45acp... turning human garbage into useful fertilizer since 1911

“The most dangerous risk of all – The risk of spending your life not doing what you want on the bet you can buy yourself the freedom to do it later”

 


#17 SycamoreRuger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 16

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:18 PM

The Supreme Court will not be bullied, and they don’t get “dragged into” cases they don’t affirmatively choose to hear.

#18 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:35 PM

Not sure they need to be.


https://www.cnbc.com...gun-rights.html

To early to tell, but early signs are decidedly neutral.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Roberts.......

#19 John Q Public

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 03:45 PM

 Wack-a-Mole, pass all the crap and when SCOTUS decides to hear one they repeal and say, why should we rule on this when it no longer exists. Mean time they put 20 more laws in and repeat the process. :hairy:



#20 billzfx4

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,375 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 08

Posted 02 December 2019 - 03:57 PM

They're "pushing an extreme interpretation of the Constitution" ?????

 

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty straight forward to me.


Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

#21 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,993 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:21 PM

always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage.

OKAlZRG.jpg
flNooJk.jpg

You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did?

https://www.chicagot...d3hy-story.html
 

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.
The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

 

Intimidating a judge is illegal.


Edited by borgranta, 02 December 2019 - 09:21 PM.

The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#22 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 10:08 PM

always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage.OKAlZRG.jpgflNooJk.jpg
You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did?https://www.chicagot...d3hy-story.html
 

In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.
The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

Intimidating a judge is illegal.


Not if you’re a Democrat

#23 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 08:15 AM

Good god are they stupid

https://townhall.com...impression=true

https://mobile.twitt...0560/frame.html

#24 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:30 AM

I wonder how much they pay these stooges?



#25 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,792 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:57 AM

TSBovlK.jpg


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#26 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 03 December 2019 - 10:03 AM

I'm kind of thinking it would be fun for a bunch of us to infiltrate, take the stipend, then pull a Clark Kent.



#27 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 03 December 2019 - 10:58 AM

Moms Demand Conformity to Authoritarian Ideologies. How is that good "for the children"?


A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#28 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 03 December 2019 - 08:59 PM

MDA: We're not anti-gun, we just agree with NYC that you should be forced to keep your gun in the your own home in NYC.


If you purchase a gun outside the home or at a store, how would you get it home, if you can only transport it to a range and back?
Void the FOID!

#29 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,003 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:14 PM

Bloomberg may be able to buy their bodies, perhaps he should spend a little more and buy them some brains as well.


Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
 


#30 raymond963

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 05:47 AM

Bloomberg may be able to buy their bodies, perhaps he should spend a little more and buy them some brains as well.

 

I'm sure he'd rather save the money and keep them just the way he wants them.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users