sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

It's not necessarily left to the majority of opinions in those states:

1. Many of those state houses are gerrymandered so as to not properly represent the majority will.

2. People don't necessarily vote based on single issues. A majority may support abortion rights in some form, but if they keep voting Republican for other reasons then good luck getting those rights back in deep-red states.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Again, friendly reminder that liberal politicians get protests outside their homes all the time.

Republicans are the ones who are being snowflakes about it. I say all is fair as long as it's non-violent and doesn't prevent people from going about their business.

---

If there were protests from conservatives at Schumer's house, please show some video. All you have is what the liar himself said. He also took a phone call in the middle of responding to the reporter's question, probably because he was trying to deflect.

The last time they protested at Pelosi's home was after the video came out of her violating lockdown measures and getting her hair done, these people weren't necessarily conservatives. It was funny but I don't approve of protesting outside people's homes as a principle.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

It doesn't. That is too strong of a statement.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

Well you can try the Tenth Amendment. Not being a legal scholar, I somehow include the Amendments in the law of the land, but maybe technically they are not. I do know it was intent as it was written as an Amendment.

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

Well you can try the Tenth Amendment. Not being a legal scholar, I somehow include the Amendments in the law of the land, but maybe technically they are not. I do know it was intent as it was written as an Amendment.

---

The 10th amendment doesn't say anything about rights

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

Well you can try the Tenth Amendment. Not being a legal scholar, I somehow include the Amendments in the law of the land, but maybe technically they are not. I do know it was intent as it was written as an Amendment.

---

The 10th amendment doesn't say anything about rights

---

Well, arguing legalize is certainly not my forte', but rather than putting forth opinion, I was referring to the Constitution setting out limits to the powers of the Federal Gov't. The powers that the Constitution does not give to the fed govt are the responsibility of the the states. Now, I take it you find that technically incorrect. I find that as the intent of our country without clouding it with any opinion of mine.

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

Well you can try the Tenth Amendment. Not being a legal scholar, I somehow include the Amendments in the law of the land, but maybe technically they are not. I do know it was intent as it was written as an Amendment.

---

The 10th amendment doesn't say anything about rights

---

Well, arguing legalize is certainly not my forte', but rather than putting forth opinion, I was referring to the Constitution setting out limits to the powers of the Federal Gov't. The powers that the Constitution does not give to the fed govt are the responsibility of the the states. Now, I take it you find that technically incorrect. I find that as the intent of our country without clouding it with any opinion of mine.

---

The 9th amendment specifically says the people have rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The people need RIGHTS because the state and Federal governments have POWER. The 9th and 10th amendment are opposed to one other.

I am a small government liberal democrat, meaning I want to maximize rights held by the people and minimize power used by the state over people. Republicans tend to be for big government, as they prefer the state wielding power of the 10th amendment over the people's rights of the 9th amendment.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.

---

I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."

---

This is an understandable and human reaction to a horrible injustice.

It doesn't make it right, however, and it's counter-productive. The last thing that we need in all this is sympathy for the 5 un-American SCOTUS judges.

Anyone who engages in violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment, in the name of politics should be held accountable. When these acts go unprosecuted, 'small-d' democracy is damaged.

Such is the case here. In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, Pro-Birth protesters have made a regular practice of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting pregnant women, with few of these cases ever being prosecuted. When these crimes are routinely prosecuted, they become rare.

Let's also not forget the acts of violence committed by police and right-wing domestic terrorists against peaceful BLM protesters. Strange that the response of law enforcement to demonstrations against the murder of innocent civilians by police was to assault the peaceful protesters.

Despite that, #BLM has not called for acts of violence, assault, vandalism, or harassment against law enforcement. They've shown admirable restraint, despite the lack of any real political support from Democrats.

---

No, this isn't an understandable response at all-abortion would not be banned by this prospective ruling and would go back to the States. This is an attempt at mob intimidation.

---

This ignores that many states have already passed laws that will instantly ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. So yes, the response is very understandable.

---

Of course some will and some won't. The choice is left with the states and the majority of opinions in those states. You and I may not like it but at least get it right.

---

Please let us know when people can peacefully object to elimination of their rights. This idea that people who live in ****hole states have to accept whatever their state governments do is a pretty interesting tact. Particularly given that the majority of opinions in many states is pro-choice, but they will still get stuck with laws they don't agree with because politicians aren't always accountable to their constituents, for a variety of reasons.

Just so I understand, would your silencing of "mob intimidation" apply to all conservatives in California as well? If so, I'm sure they will be pleased to hear that they are no longer permitted to object to any concerns they have about our government, because "it's up to the states".

---

Uh, as I have repeatedly posted I am for abortion being legal with some reasonable time limits (roughly 16-20). Aside that I was citing the law as it is. You know, rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remaining with the states. So your passion is wonderful, your ascribing views to topics is not. The rigid stances to the left of center oftentimes parallel those right of center. I can but laugh.

---

Where does the Constitution say rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states?

---

Well you can try the Tenth Amendment. Not being a legal scholar, I somehow include the Amendments in the law of the land, but maybe technically they are not. I do know it was intent as it was written as an Amendment.

---

The 10th amendment doesn't say anything about rights

---

Well, arguing legalize is certainly not my forte', but rather than putting forth opinion, I was referring to the Constitution setting out limits to the powers of the Federal Gov't. The powers that the Constitution does not give to the fed govt are the responsibility of the the states. Now, I take it you find that technically incorrect. I find that as the intent of our country without clouding it with any opinion of mine.

---

The 9th amendment specifically says the people have rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The people need RIGHTS because the state and Federal governments have POWER. The 9th and 10th amendment are opposed to one other.

I am a small government liberal democrat, meaning I want to maximize rights held by the people and minimize power used by the state over people. Republicans tend to be for big government, as they prefer the state wielding power of the 10th amendment over the people's rights of the 9th amendment.

---

Thanks for your explanation. From what you say I find myself totally against federal govt power except the specifics outlined for it, and States rights being number one. JMHO. The country differs significantly more than ever, and the expression of the people has to be such that they can adjust and move to a condition they like. To me politics is far from number one--lifelong Californian and I would never leave for all the other reasons that make California great. Others would. Different strokes, different folks.

---

BREAKING AUDIO: @HumanEvents obtains tape of death threats sent by to Wisconsin pro-life center that was firebombed this week

Due to disturbing content, discretion is advised https://t.co/E9IYQ9uoGk pic.twitter.com/dq38HIxNGb

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 13, 2022

BearForce2 said:

---

BREAKING AUDIO: @HumanEvents obtains tape of death threats sent by to Wisconsin pro-life center that was firebombed this week

Due to disturbing content, discretion is advised https://t.co/E9IYQ9uoGk pic.twitter.com/dq38HIxNGb

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 13, 2022

Mostly peaceful violence!

---