This is clearly a mental health issue, not a protesting issue. Protests don't kill people, people kill people.
No, I am just exaggerating some nonsensical views - to show how hypocritical the right has become. None of my takes are ignorant, they are factual, but many can be viewed as ......the opposite of Fox News style of stuff, an that is on purpose. DD
I can’t help people who are selfish, and think of themselves over others. The GOP is dead now, it has been overrun by ignorance and a lack of integrity and personal responsibility. DD
So you have one guy who didn't actually even get close to carrying out his act and who doesn't appear connected to any larger group compared to an incident where hundreds actually stormed Capital fought LE protecting the Capital and were led and organized by national groups. Also where just before a sitting President told them to march down to the Capital.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/11/supreme-court-judges-safety-kavanaugh/ Opinion Supreme Court justices should be able to feel safe at home By the Editorial Board June 11, 2022 at 8:00 a.m. EDT A man traveled this past week from California to the Montgomery County home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, allegedly with plans to kill the jurist and then himself. Authorities said he was dressed in black clothes and carrying a backpack and suitcase that contained a knife, a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, zip ties, pepper spray and other items. He (thankfully) did not carry out his plan but instead called 911 and turned himself in. It appears mental health issues were at play, but there is little doubt that the presence of two deputy U.S. marshals stationed outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home was a big reason the man broke off his planned attack. The frightening incident in Wednesday’s early hours prompted Republicans to point out that the Senate approved last month a bill to enhance Supreme Court justices’ security, permitting federal officers to protect justices’ families as well as court officers themselves, but that the House has yet to pass anything. A leaked draft court opinion that, if formally issued, would overturn Roe v. Wade has ratcheted up concerns about court safety. So Republicans insist that Democrats must move quickly. House Democrats appear determined to pass a bill but are pausing to consider whether court clerks should get similar protection. Democrats are right to weigh giving court officials the flexibility to order protection for justices, their families, clerks, clerks’ families or anyone else who might require security because of their relationship with the court. For that matter, they should look at extending protection to lower-court officials, too. But they cannot take long. The Senate bill has already languished in the House for a month. Their time is up. Federal lawmakers are not the only ones with a responsibility to help safeguard the judiciary. That duty also lies with those who have protested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s house in advance of the coming abortion rights ruling. No matter how passionately activists feel about an issue — and we believe strongly that overturning Roe would be a disastrous mistake — these feelings do not justify invading public officials’ private lives and those of their families. This is especially true for judges. Respect for the institution of the court, the rule of law and the orderly adjudication of public matters demands that protests, no matter how justified, stay in the public square. Otherwise, activists on any side of any issue — be it voting rights or minority protections or environmental rules — could use protest to intimidate judges. Judges must be expected — and also given the space — to make their best determinations based on deep thinking, rationality and the law, not without regard for the public reaction, but at least without worry that their families will be besieged. Sometimes justices will fail in this charge. But the court’s work will be neither summed up nor finished with a single ruling. The institution must be able to function — and, eventually, right itself — as it considers a vast array of controversial disputes in which the public should want levelheaded jurists who are unafraid to go home at night.
Civil servants like Fauci should also "feel safe at home". Let's not just draw the concern meter at scrotus and maybe that hangable simp Mike Pence. It's a race to the bottom. Borderless monies and low turnout primaries made that happen. Getting normies to participate in that process is like asking them to lose ten pounds and donate blood. They know it's the responsible thing, but **** that, you aren't the boss of me.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-as...ection-11655063405?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s The Assault on the Supreme Court The Justices are especially vulnerable to acts of political violence in these fanatical times. By The Editorial Board June 12, 2022 5:09 pm ET Democrats are upset that many Republican voters don’t consider the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to have been an assault on democracy, and maybe one reason is that too many Democrats appear to have a double standard about which democratic institutions they want to protect. Jan. 6 was an assault on the transfer of presidential power and Congress’s duty to certify the Electoral College votes under the Constitution. But what about the growing threat to the third branch of democratic government, the Supreme Court, and especially the seeming nonchalance toward last week’s arrest of an armed man outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh ? Judging by the Democratic and media reaction, you’d think this was routine news. Publications such as the New York Times buried the story, while President Biden still hadn’t commented as of Sunday afternoon. Speaker Nancy Pelosiseemed barely to care as she said the House will eventually get around to considering a Senate bill to add security for the families of the Justices. Does anyone think this would have been the reaction if Justice Sonia Sotomayor had been targeted? It’s true that the man arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s Maryland home may suffer from mental illness. Police say he said he was having suicidal thoughts. But police also say he was upset about looming Supreme Court rulings on guns and abortion—a distinct political trigger for his violent intent. There’s reason to worry that this won’t be the last such attempt. Protesters continue to picket outside the homes of several Justices, despite federal and local laws against such behavior. Ruth Sent Us, the left-wing group that published the home addresses of the Justices, advised followers last week that Justice Amy Coney Barrett goes to church daily and her children attend a People of Praise school. This is all the more worrisome because the Court is arguably more vulnerable to acts of violence than the other branches. There are only nine Justices, and a single vote can change the result in a case. There is also typically a period of weeks or months between oral arguments in a case, which can hint at how Justices are leaning, and the release of the Court’s judgment. A bad actor, spun up in righteous fanaticism, might believe that this is the moment to kill a Justice to stop a result. Note that Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion, leaked to the press, suggested a 5-4 majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. One vote would be decisive. Congress with its 535 Members would continue to function as a democratic institution even after an assassination. The Presidency is uniquely vulnerable because it is vested in an individual, but he is protected by the large security apparatus of the Secret Service. The Justices have nothing close to that security, yet a single assassination would do tremendous damage to the Court and to democracy. Imagine the political fury if President Biden appointed a Justice to replace a conservative member of the Court who had been murdered. Democrats who think this would work in their favor might think again. All of this means that Congress and the President, representing Articles I and II of the Constitution, have a special obligation to protect the Article III judiciary. In a less polarized era, Mr. Biden would have called the leaders of both parties and chambers in Congress to the White House for a joint appearance to denounce the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh and any act of violence against the judiciary. He could still do this. Meanwhile, Attorney General Merrick Garland could also warn, and then prosecute, those who are attempting to intimidate the Justices by harassing them or their families at home or at school. Critics of the Court can demonstrate all they want in front of the Supreme Court or march in the streets of Washington. But attempting to influence judges with threats is a federal crime. We wish we didn’t have to write this, but we live in fanatical times when political violence is all too possible. Protecting democracy means protecting all of its institutions.
Of course the justices should feel safe at home and in their job just as the members of Congress and the VP should. Last I checked security has been increased for the justices by the current Administration. While under the prior Administration rioters invaded Congress and threatened to hang the VP. Meanwhile the previous President delayed responding for hours and then told the rioters they were loved.
Opinion: Everyone should be able to feel safe at home. Them, their families, or anyone. No matter what their politics or positions. How many lawmakers and advocates get death threats for something they wrote on twitter? Anyone who makes death threats towards someone for something they expressed should be stopped. People say no one should be able to protest outside a supreme court's home as it makes them feel unsafe. Well, if you say that, then you should also be for stopping hate speech online which to many are direct threats of violence against them. Should not all people not feel safe? Or is it just if you are a Justice you get special safety leeway in limiting free speech that citizens or lawmakers do not?
While very true, so is the Democratic Party. I hope that I can see much better than any of these two clown show parties have to offer in my lifetime. Both sides have good things to bring to the table from a belief or well being perspective. Neither care about that because all they do is worry about getting re-elected again.
It is not close to equal, while the democrats are offering their platform the only thing the Republicans are offering - NO THAT SUCKS....they literally have no platform to stand upon. DD
Proud Boys have a right to storm a children's event, yell slurs and make parents and children feel unsafe as they wear shirts that say ak 47
Mitch McConnell made a lifetime appointment position 100% partisan and the Republicans never shut up about how incredible it would be if RGB dies. I agree that it is now unsafe to be a SCOTUS judge. But why is that??? The answer is pretty obvious. It sure as hell won’t be any less dangerous for a Dem SCOTUS when there is a GOP president with a GOP senate majority. You want to take the risk away from Beerbong Brett??? How about changing the rules to eliminate the insane level of benefit that half of the country perceives they get if someone kills them??? So yes… I do support ACTUALLY protecting Beerbong Brett in a meaningful way. Why don’t republicans like you??
