Interesting I looked at their instagram and website and it definitely doesn't look like an activist group but a one person rodeo. When you google search them, all that comes up is right wing news talking about how liberal activist groups are about to descend on to conservative justices homes. It seems that this is a media manufactured crisis more than anything. Someone found this person's Instagram feed. Consider this - the website was last updated on April 24th, that means that map was up long before the leak came out and was likely some persons nut case vision of a movement. Also consider this - that since the leak happened, there has been one instagram post that has garner 4 comments. How is this getting so much press?
Sen. Schumer - “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.”
Not sure I would call that group of Proud Boys, thugs beating down cops, putting up a hangman's noose, and carrying Hang Mike Pence signs conservatives at all. More like thugs and far right extremists.
I imagine you’d feel the same if a Republican senate majority leader was openly threatening Supreme Court Justices. Even if you disagree with their decision, this is an awful look and denigrates the entire system. Schumer is a self important pompous ass. Has been for a long time.
can't vouch for any of this https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/05/meet-the-shady-left-wing-group-targeting-scotus-justices-and-their-families/
https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/three.html ON LIBERTY by John Stuart Mill (1859) CHAPTER III ON INDIVIDUALITY, AS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF WELLBEING SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions--to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
It claims it's shadowy because the owner info behind the URL is not visible - but they fail to mention that's very typical these days. And an old listing could just be that old - the site may have changed hands. Like I said, a website that hasn't been updated for a few weeks and has very little engagement behind it's social media channels is being taken as this huge news item. This is the kind of stuff that looks more like propaganda than journalism, and raises questions about the credibility of those amplifying this story.
Women protesting for a right to control their own bodies predictably being elevated to 2017 Antifa boogeyman existential threat level is about as laughable as Putin trying a justification campaign claiming that a Jewish Ukrainian president is a secret Nazi. You people on the right who support, defend, and argue on behalf of the Jan 6 terrorists who violently stormed the capital getting cops killed but who are ready to lie about women protestors really are disgusting people.
“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.” This one.
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said in the statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” - Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts "NoT A ThReat" - @FranchiseBlade. lmao. No credibility.
Perhaps for people whose minds lean towards violence it is threatening. For me it means political and consequences of consciousness. I applaud that. To me, that kind of passion is the way to get things done.
