Jump to content

Moms Demand and friends to intimidate at SCOTUS tomorrow


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

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.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-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Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question.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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.....

post-16014-0-33233000-1575299004_thumb.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure they need to be.

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

 

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

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...