Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

Quote: Pacomartin

spittling of Roman Empire into seperate empires Eastern and Western Roman Empire


You make it sound like the city was split.

East and West Rome was split to make the Empire more manageable.
Where did I say just the City was split? Rome in that context means the Empire.

Why are people being allowed to attempt to intimidate justices by protesting at or near homes?

Everyone should condemn that type of protest. It is also likely illegal.

Protest legally away from residences.

Quote: RonC

Why are people being allowed to attempt to intimidate justices by protesting at or near homes?

Everyone should condemn that type of protest. It is also likely illegal.

Protest legally away from residences.

Just like the right condemned people protesting in front of cops houses who arrested people for vovid restriction violations?

Oh that's right you guys said it's a public sidewalk and people have the right to stand outside their houses all night and protest....

Quote: RonC

Why are people being allowed to attempt to intimidate justices by protesting at or near homes?

Everyone should condemn that type of protest. It is also likely illegal.

Protest legally away from residences.

From what I have read, Biden is OK with it.

This is what these people are, modern Brownshirts.

Quote: RonC

Why are people being allowed to attempt to intimidate justices by protesting at or near homes?

Everyone should condemn that type of protest. It is also likely illegal.

Protest legally away from residences.

If they are breaking any laws I would agree with you. If not, let them have their say.

Quote: RonC

Why are people being allowed to attempt to intimidate justices by protesting at or near homes?

Everyone should condemn that type of protest. It is also likely illegal.

Protest legally away from residences.

Quote:

To enforce this law, prosecutors would need to prove that the protesters intended to influence a court's decision, not merely to express outrage about said decision.

Protestors just need to change the signs, "We're expressing outrage".

Besides that I don't think they could easily apply the charge to everyone there at once. Wouldn't they have to allege it individually?

Quote: rxwine

Protestors just need to change the signs, "We're expressing outrage".

Besides that I don't think they could easily apply the charge to everyone there at once. Wouldn't they have to allege it individually?

They are attempting to intimidate the justices since the decision has not actually been announced…the votes could change.

While it seems to be illegal based on reading the law, I am not a lawyer and would love to hear from the independent Justice Department say why, or why not, it is legal to protest in this way.

My main point is that protest should be done, when legal (because it could also be illegal at other places), at the places where the thing being protested is happening. People, all people, should be left alone at home in general. If it is not illegal specifically, it is poor behavior.

…did I really say independent Justice Department? Hmmm…

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, good people would not think "Let the kids bang, blow and suck each other all they want, it's nature's gift, "the little ease."" is a good idea. And they would not be in favor of teaching kids that while thinking teaching them religion is the end of the world.

So you say; alas and alack your response does not really attempt to provide the answer I asked about, i.e. "define "good people."

It is oxymoronic for you to respond as you did, i.e. saying only that "good people" disagree with the behavior I outlined; you really should explain specifically what makes them "good" and others not "good."

So I will try again.

What is wrong with a 17 year old having consensual sex with another 17 year old?

Old enough to drive, old enough to dive, eh?

As the motto of the great state of New Hampshire so aptly says, "Live Free or Die."

Quote: missedhervee

What is wrong with a 17 year old having consensual sex with another 17 year old?

You jumped from age 13 to age 17

Well, for one at 17 you are incapable of giving consent. Another is not yet being mentally mature.

At 17 they are not even old enough to buy cigarettes for after.

Not the kind of thing to encourage.

Quote: RonC

They are attempting to intimidate the justices since the decision has not actually been announced…the votes could change.

While it seems to be illegal based on reading the law, I am not a lawyer and would love to hear from the independent Justice Department say why, or why not, it is legal to protest in this way.

My main point is that protest should be done, when legal (because it could also be illegal at other places), at the places where the thing being protested is happening. People, all people, should be left alone at home in general. If it is not illegal specifically, it is poor behavior.

…did I really say independent Justice Department? Hmmm…

Why do the justices deserve some right from free speech of others that's not covered in the Constitution concerning a right the conservative majority is removing because they say it's not in the Constitution?