Will Biden And Schumer Now Condemn Protests At Justices Homes
- Thread starter ed odowd
- Start date
This is just another example how addresses of judges should be confidential and not on the internet. I would probably include prosecutors as well. There are far too many yahoos out there. What happened in our state should have been enough. But now we just had a retired judge in Wisconsin killed and now this. Let's keep members of the judiciary safe.
Last edited:
The way you word the question makes it sound like only Republican judges are threatened and that is just not so. Of course all jurists should be protected as should prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Tom K
Not sure there’s a way to read your posts properly.
Regardless of what his posts says any American who is not disturbed by this has a problem. Political temperatures are just way too high. Wouldn’t be shocked to see some right wing nut threaten a left leaning Justice. This garbage needs to stop. Our leaders need to make it stop.
Rand Paul blocked this bill for judges. The bill was named and sponsored after the tragedy here in NJ with the attempted murder of a judge and murder of her son.
Paul's reasoning is that he wanted all elected officials included not just judges on the bill.
Why? Shouldn't there be a line on privacy for serving in a public office whether elected or appointed.
Seems like several on this board question my posts wording when they as usual object to the points made.Just say you disagree like a man and don’t pick at the wording.I only have 2 degrees and am a FINRA arbitrator so all these guys must have three degrees at least.Nice attempt to diminish my posts but I don’t bend to intimidation so sorry I won’t go away.
Interesting in 23 minutes with lapdog Kimmel Biden never brought up attempt on Kavanugh‘s life .I guess if it was successful he would have mentioned it.Hope my wording can be understood by all posters.
Really? Since it is politicians, that is in their own hands entirely. Why should he have objected to judges in the first place. It is absolutely stupid and selfish.
Yeah, really. I don't know the reason for his objection. There may have been more to the proposed legislation that I haven't read through. Have you read the entire piece?
You see anything objectionable? He just wanted it for himself as well. So screw the judges.
Common sense is that you pass it for judges. If you want it for yourself, introduce another piece of legislation for members of Congress.
I don't have an issue, so I have no reason to read the text. You obviously do, so have at it.
Maybe legislation was proposed after Scalise and others were shot and it was denied...
Scalise was shot on softball field. Gabby Giffords was shot at a supermarket. Despicable acts no doubt. however, it was not done at their homes. I do not know of any legislation that was proposed for members of Congress such as the Judicial Security Act. Seems like you are bending over backwards to try to excuse Rand Paul's selfishness. there is absolutely nothing objectionable about this legislation. Seems like a no-brainer except for Rand Paul.
Yeah because that is how Congress works.
No reason to have a special interest carve out just for judges. The common sense way.
"We just have to do something!! There ought to be a law!!!"
Top Senate Dem ‘Very Much’ Concerned Pelosi Hasn’t Passed Bill to Protect Families of Supreme Court Justices | National Review
The House Democrats’ stated reason for holding up the bill passed to protect SCOTUS justices and their families is preposterous.
www.nationalreview.com
This should not be a political issue. it is essential that the Judges safety and security be protected.
TK
TK
Exactly, and anyone protesting at their homes should have been arrested immediately.
Maybe we ought to make laws that make all people safer, even if it offends someone, and then a crazy idea but actually enforce the laws. Offend the gun owners, offend people who don’t like stop and frisk, but for crying out loud do the best we can to protect Justices, judges, Congress people, and every other American citizen.
Hmm, so you want only the Supreme Court to be protected but not the rest of the Federal Judges?Top Senate Dem ‘Very Much’ Concerned Pelosi Hasn’t Passed Bill to Protect Families of Supreme Court Justices | National Review
The House Democrats’ stated reason for holding up the bill passed to protect SCOTUS justices and their families is preposterous.
Sorry, this is all nonsense. The Judicial Security Act should be passed as well as the bill that was unanimously passed by the Senate to protect Supreme Court justices. We are talking about people's lives. This is not politics.
Just adding to my ramblings. I support longer terms for Congress people with no chance or ability to be re-elected. These people should know their time is up and not have any conflict about how their decisions will impact their next race. They need to focus on doing what is right, not what is right for re-election. That's the biggest issue with our political system currently.
As long as Stop and frisk is being done within the confines of the Constitution. You must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed before stopping and frisking.
The bill does not prevent protesting. It adds funds for security for Supreme Court Justices and their families. Something that should be done.
That's absurd that you can check people randomly at the airport within the confines of the Constitution but not on the street? Do we make a stop and frisk community program not associated with the police similar to the TSA to do this? I got nothing to hide. I've been stopped at the airport many times. They want to check me, go ahead. They want to check me getting off the train, I welcome it. Until everyone is subject to the same scrutiny on the streets that we get in the airport we will be in trouble. Give me one good reason why the air should be any safer than the streets? Maybe they'd have stopped even one of these school shootings if cops could stop anyone. Do what's necessary to protect people. Stop trying to find ways to make the world unsafe. Stop worrying about peoples feelings and actually make it more difficult for crimes and murders to be committed.
Last edited:
The reason is called the 4th Amendment.
But let's think about it. No one has to be searched at an airport if you do not want it. However, if you do not get searched, you do not have the privilege to get on the plane which is run by private industry.
However, on the street, if you are subject to a stop and frisk, you do not have the right to refuse that search even though you are just walking down the street. That would be a crime of obstruction. No right of refusal, you just can't walk away and go the opposite way in which your were walking.
No, like I've stated in this thread previously, all public officials should be protected not just judges. Why is that so hard to understand?
Also, there were federal marshals protecting Kavanaugh's house, that's how they got the guy.
Then shouldn't private industry be in charge of the security? Or do just bring up private industry when it suits you?
A thing called 9/11 happened. Before that we did not have the federal government providing the security. It was the airport itself which did it and normally done by private security companies, if I recall correctly.
Moreover, if you can't understand the difference of heightened security for a plane as opposed to a street, I don't know what to tell you.
The federal government heavily regulated airport security on and before 09/11. Remember the "Did anyone pack your bag for you?" and "Did anyone ask you to put anything in your bag?" Al Gore stupidity?
I only responded to the airport security piece, why would you respond to me about street security?
How many things called mass shootings need to happen before you think we need change. Amazing how people want to modernize the second amendment, but don’t touch the fourth amendment.
Last edited:
How many people the last 2 years lost priviledges of doing what they wanted to do because they didn't get a shot. I'm sure we can find plenty of priviledges to take away for those who refuse stop and frisk. Heck I know plenty of people (nurses and teachers) who lost a priviledge called their employment because they wouldn't take shot. This is was done in an effort to "save lives", I would think the purpose of more stop and frish would be to "save lives"
Ah so you want people to be searched on the street by police without reasonable articulable suspicion. So you want a fascist state where the police can search anyone at anytime.
My suggestions on the laws regarding firearms do not violate the second amendment. However, you want to disregard the 4th Amendment and make us into a police state.
Moreover, your arguments are all over the place conflating issues.
