Abortion not outlawed just left to states per 10th amendment .Why was it ok in 1973 to create a right not mentioned in constitution that even RBG said was bad law ,but now it is outrageous to return the authority to the states.On top of that the major cheerleader for the protestors is Biden who seems to tell one story about his life every week that makes himself look worthy of praise,but unfortunately they never happened.Some may think Nova should have covered for him in his latest story of bestowing a doctorate degree to a nun at a Nova graduation.But Nova said it never happened so it joins a long list of stories in Joe’s confused head that never happened.
Roe v Wade
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
That's funny, I've been saying the same thing about this administration (local and national).
I bet you don't make a dime doing it. Sexual abuse a far, far greater problem in the public schools than in any church, ever. By absolute numbers and percentage.
I don't know what ecosystem you're referring to -- and hopefully you've sobered up by now -- but the Catholic Church is responsible for more charity than just about any organization world-wide, saving the government (and by extension you), billions of dollars. Also, you can drink and post all night while others are doing the actual volunteerism required of charitable works. Win-win.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
But he isnt wrong. They had (have?) A massive pedophilia problem that was swept under the rug. Millions of kids worldwide were abused, 330,000 just in France! While there charitable work is notable it doesnt absolve them of that hideous side of their organization.
Last edited by a moderator:
In effect you are "blaming" conservatives for being opposed to unlawful behavior.
Are you saying that leftists / progressives are OK with unlawfull behavior? Sounds like it to me.
Considering the Federal Law that is in the books, in your opinion what is the line that separates lawful protests as related to the Supreme Court in this case, from intimidation and harrassment.
Of course it doesn't absolve anyone of wrongdoing. But to suggest that sexual abuse is more than 1% of the clergy, or has not been addressed, is false. That said, I the world or the church will never be free of pedophilia, unfortunately.
It really has nothing to do with anything, frankly. Roe v. Wade overturned? Pedophile scandal.
I am not blaming conservatives. I disagree with the decision for reasons I have previously posted like ignoring precedent.
I have given my explanations on why that Federal law does not apply to these demonstrators. The law requires the intent to influence a decision. That was never the case as it was decided. So that Federal law does not apply. Moreover, that federal law has not been enforced as there were constant demonstrations on the steps of the Supreme Court for decades. The federal law states that no demonstration will take place in Federal court or land around it as well as homes of judges.
Only local laws will be used to prosecute behavior that violates the law like harassment. Harassment is done with actions to intimidate another. I think that is where it crosses the line.
I truly believe the organizations like Shutdown DC leading the way know Roe vs Wade is over, but they're looking to influence the next decisions that will be made. Like in sports you know the ref isn't going to change their call, but you're fighting for the next call. I think these protests are meant to intimidate the judges for their next decisions. Whether the people actually protesting know that or not is a different story, but I believe the politicians and organizations are looking to influence future decisions with these protests.
I think that the Federal Law IS being broken by the protests in front of Justice's homes. Legal protest: Made in the public square. Protest all you want without impinging the rights of others. Illegal protest: At the home of or targeting in some way (i.e. at a restaurant) a Justice regarding a Supreme Court decision. No one from the administration has gone so far as to give some definition or example of what they consider intimidation or harrassment. All they say is they support the right to protest under the 1st Amendment. Where is the line drawn? Merritt Garland seems to agree with you since he is not doing anything to stop it... nor has he stepped forward to comment on it. There are plenty of people who know the Law who disagree with you and Garland.
By the way you need to be clearer about what you mean by " It allows Conservatives to bash this type of behavior'. Also this is not the first time that the Supreme Court has stricken down other unconstitutional laws. Precedent is not sacrosanct.
Yes precedent has been struck down like things like separate but equal. This is the first time that it has overturned double precedent because Roe was afirmes by Casey. It is also the first time it has taken away a right.
People can protest as long as they do not break the law. Now, if the protestors go overboard then they should be arrested. I also think that bothering people at restaurants is not cool and could border on being harassing if done to intimidate. I don’t like the tactic as it is a low class thing to do to someone.
The federal law is intended to criminalize people trying to influence a case that is before them. Not some unknown case. They are protesting. The question becomes what action go too far so the local police can arrest. This is not a federal crime despite the idiot talking heads on Fox.
I don't think the Federal Law is limited to cases that are before the judges. In fact I doubt a Law like this would be so limited in scope.
BTW... 25 State Attorneys General are petitioning Merritt Garland to enforce the Law regarding the protests at Justices' homes. That's hardly the "idiot talking heads" you snarkily bring up.
Last edited:
Speaking of Garland, the country dodged a bullet with him not getting on the Supreme Court even though the Senate GOP was wrong to do what they did at the time. He has proven to be a partisan politician serving in a position that isn't supposed to be political.
If spotting a justice or politician at a restaurant and having an impromptu "protest" -- which in reality has been harrassment in attempts to disrupt their meals and drive them from the establishment -- is "not cool," what do you consider looking up their home addresses and showing up there? What about posting the address of a justice's child's school? It's a bad precedent to allow people to gather outside of a justice's house and intimidate them. Whether or not you think they're breaking the law, that is what they are there to accomplish. I suspect if conservatives had showed up at the houses of the justices after the same-sex marriage decision, you would look less kindly upon them (as would have the AG).
Similar threads
