raise your hand if you support protesting kavenaugh and his SC buddies everywhere they go

[moonshinegnomie]

everytime they go out to eat.
everytime they appear in public

Him,barrett,thomas,alito,gorsuch and roberts

[MyOwnPeace]

1. Oh, oh, oh, oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moonshinegnomie]

3. loved that show

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. No Justice, No Peace!!!

[burrowowl]

142. Exactly!

[2naSalit]

163. The mantra of the day.

[gratuitous]

4. According to Justice Scalia

"Protecting people from speech they don't want to hear is not a function of the First Amendment." Of course, that reasoning was being applied to health clinic protesters in Massachusetts, not Supreme Court Justices.

[Xipe Totec]

5. First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine.

[LT Barclay]

29. I always think it is odd that even though this amendment specifically says NO LAW...ABRIDGING

right to peaceably assemble, we accept limitations on this all the time.
But the second that clearly says "well regulated" is regarded as a free for all.
Just shows what intellectual lightweights we have on the SCOTUS.

[PoliticAverse]

51. The first says "Congress shall make no law" - laws regulating speech and press were meant to be left

to the states.

And "well regulated" in the 2nd meant "well trained".

[LT Barclay]

56. I don't read either that way. Congress established laws creating states. So if congress allowed

states to regulate speech, they made a law to limit speech.
Even if we accept that well regulated = well trained, it is still in the context of a structure i.e. a militia, which means control and discipline.
I still find it odd that one prohibits limits and we accept them. One establishes limits and we don't.

[PoliticAverse]

59. Congress didn't "allow states to regulate speech". The states created Congress...

and the federal government through their creation of the Constitution. Any power the states didn't specifically cede to the federal government in the Constitution the states kept for themselves as explicitly pointed out in the 10th amendment...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[LT Barclay]

71. by that logic, states could do anything to regulate speech. They could seize books,

shut down media outlets, etc.

[PoliticAverse]

74. Actually they could (and sometimes did) but then...

the 14th Amendment was passed:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Over the years the courts, using the 14th Amendment, significantly changed the division of power between states and the federal government and extended the limitations of the Bill of Rights on the federal government to the states...

As explained by The Bill of Rights Institute ( https://billofrightsinstitute.org/lessons/the-fourteenth-amendment-and-incorporation ):

The Bill of Rights, setting limitations on Congress, originally applied only to the national government. In the effort to protect individual rights of the freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. It differs from every previous amendment because it limits what state governments may do. Over the next seventy-five years, the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment increased. It used the Due Process clause in that amendment to strike down many state laws and to selectively incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment so as to make them apply to states as well as the federal government. This practice, known as “incorporation,” increased the Supreme Court’s power to define rights for the entire Union, and reduced the power of the states as compared to federal power. It also reduced the power of Congress as opposed to the Supreme Court, to define which rights are properly constitutional. This changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights from a series of limits on government power to a set of rights belonging to the individual and guaranteed by the federal government.

Also note that many states did incorporate in their own state constitutions protections similar to those found in the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment being passed.

[LT Barclay]

179. Well what a mess! But at least we're heading in the right direction. At this rate we'll have a

functioning democracy that recognizes individual rights sometime after 2525?

[Higherarky]

83. Merriam-Webster sez

Regulate: Synonyms

Bridle, check, constrain, contain, controlled, curbed, governed, inhibited, pulled in, restrained, etc.

FYI.

[PoliticAverse]

89. You need to look up the phrase "well-regulated" and use sources from the time the phrase was used...

From: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

[intrepidity]

91. So, what, in your opinion

was meant by a "well-regulated militia"?

[PoliticAverse]

92. A militia that functions effectively, that is a well trained one and equipped one. n/t

[intrepidity]

94. And what is the modern incarnation of that? nt

[PoliticAverse]

95. According to federal law...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And from the constitution:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

State militias would depend on individual state law.

But note the 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right of the people" not "the right of members of the militia".

The founders didn't believe in large standing armies in general. Unfortunately we now have a large standing army and giant defense budget which has led to perpetual war and permanent troops stationed all over the world.

[Higherarky]

102. So, you're saying the "militia" referred to in the 2nd is in proper working order,

functioning as expected?

Interesting.

[PoliticAverse]

103. No. Lots of things hoped for by the writers of the Constitution aren't working as expected. n/t

[Higherarky]

111. In your opinion,

How could/should this discrepancy be resolved?

[PoliticAverse]

115. Constitutional amendments. n/t

[Higherarky]

119. Such as ...

?

Please elaborate.

[azureblue]

118. no - dumb

Doesn't any gun nut even learn US history? Jeez. OK here we go again --
Back in those days, each town had a group of people who defended the town against marauders, highway men, angry Indians, etc. Sometimes the group was financed by somebody with money to pay for the weapons, gun powder, lead, etc.And to train them hopefully. Often not, just a bunch of guys who own muskets and pistols, who had no military training at all.
Then comes the America Revolutionary War, and Washington needed an army. Stay with me here, this can get detailed. So the volunteers for the army were the various "militias". Oops. They weren't standardized at all, often not even using the same caliber musket balls, much less the same make of musket. And many not trained at all in warfare. So, the first battles, a bunch of the rag tag army turned tail and ran. The rest couldn't even share shot in the heat of battle, so they got their butts kicked as the well organized British army and their mercenaries ran over them like a lawnmower. So the whole army had to be trained and weapons standardized. Tales of Valley Forge, etc. So (with the help of the French at Yorktown) Independence was won.
War over, everybody goes home, a Constitution was begun. Whoops, the broke new country can't afford an army big enough to defend the new states. Don't forget, it took weeks to get from place to place. So the solution was to keep the Army, and supplement it with militias trained, with the same weaponry, and ready to be called up if needed. See "well Regulated". Anything starting to come into focus now? So the 2nd was written to more or less codify the readiness of the militias and to make sure they had sufficient weaponry, in case they should be called to action.
And that is what the 2nd amendment was written for - essentially the citizen soldier. Of course, once communication improved, roads were built, and the new country grew, the need for militias diminished, and the intent of the 2nd amendment fell into history.. Except for the gun nuts, who probably could pass a 6th grade physical, much less be able to stand fast when being shot at..

[Higherarky]

148. Excuse me?

Were you replying to me?

[DiamondShark]

160. Cool story.

But until a constitutional amendment is passed to change the Second, I will continue to be a part of the militia. Able bodied and ready to be called to action if need arises to defend my country. When the fascist stormed the Capitol on Jan 06 2021, I was ready, and I will continue to be ready when they attack our federal government once again.

[Shipwack]

136. If they meant "well trained", than why isn't it enforced?

The piece of garbage who shot up Uvalde was able to get two AR-15s (on credit, no less) without being required to prove he was “well trained”…

[MerryHolidays]

161. That's adopting Scalia's view hook, line, and sinker. Have you forgotten John Paul Stevens' dissent?

[Bettie]

6. Remember: a 30 foot buffer around clinics was a violation of free speech

so, we can protest any damn place we please as long as we are not violent.

And Beer Boy wasn't "forced" to leave through the back, he CHOSE to leave that way to avoid seeing the people who his decisions impact.

They (the right wing six) are so insulated from the public, so deep in their little bubble that they never have to actually see or hear of what their decisions have done to people.

Of course, I suspect a couple of them look for such stories just to make themselves happy at the idea that they have personally harmed people.

[PoliticAverse]

53. Actually no, the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on anti-abortion protests...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-zones-idUSKBN2432CD

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place policies in Chicago and Pennsylvania’s capital Harrisburg that place limits on anti-abortion activists gathered outside abortion clinics.

The justices declined to hear two appeals by anti-abortion groups and individual activists of lower court rulings upholding the cities’ ordinances.

The Chicago policy bars activists from coming within eight feet (2.4 meters) of someone within 50 feet (15 meters) of any healthcare facility without their consent if they intend to protest, offer counseling or hand out leaflets. The Harrisburg measure bars people from congregating or demonstrating within 20 feet (6 meters) of a healthcare facility’s entrance or exit.

[azureblue]

109. Remeber

It is Ok for RW's to damage a person's property, make threatening phone calls, call a person's work and tell lies, even harass kids at school, stand in front of a person's house with a bull horn at all hours of the day, but, oh no, you can't do that when the shoe is on the other foot.

What goes around comes around, and all that crap the Magats, the Right Wingers, the evangelists, threw at us is coming back at ya

[Baitball Blogger]

7. If it's legal, then we should follow every recourse available.

There is a lot of justified rage coming from our side, and peaceful protests might help to diffuse it.

[PoliticAverse]

61. No, you shouldn't "follow every recourse available", but only recourses that are effective...

and don't cause backlashes that hurt your cause.

[robodruid1]

167. Agreed

If you cant articulate the goal, and how the action gets you there, its going to fail.

[TigressDem]

8. ME! ME!

[MOMFUDSKI]

9. With a side of

BULLHORNS

[agingdem]

12. and bring "gifts"..

coat hangers would be nice...

[wnylib]

54. Mail campaign to send them

boxes of coathangers, dipped in red paint?

[2 Meow Momma]

10. I'm in!

I wish I was in the vicinity of them.

If I or mine don’t have dominion over our own uteruses, then they can put up with the 1st amendment rights of those with the long hand of government up our (insert your own word here).

No telling how long women will have the right to protest!

[LoisB]

11. Both hands up

[MontanaMama]

13. I don't live anywhere near these fascists...

But if I did, I’d be all over making them uncomfortable in society. They sure as hell made most of the country a little more than uncomfortable.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. If you're going to screw the people, don't expect to walk peaceably among them.

[mvd]

15. Hand raised!

They make the bad decisions affecting a lot of people. They deserve it.

[stopdiggin]

16. will it be effective

in any larger sense? Or is there a possibility of backlash and counter-productivity? That's the calculus that runs through my mind. The BLM protests saw massive public support and approval. These people .. ?

(For clarification, because some of our readers are not real quick on the uptake - I frankly don't give a crap what anguish and discomfort Brett Kavanaugh goes through, or whether he ever enjoys another day out in public - but what I think we need to keep our sights on is the impact/reaction on Mom & Pop TV - as well as perhaps the hundreds of other diners, waitstaff, neighboring business .... I realize those considerations get short shrift with the true firebrands and the 'smack 'em in the nose' types here - but what we are trying to accomplish with protest(s) - is in the end public opinion. Correct?)

Sorry for pooping on the parade - it was the horses! I swear! .. ----- -----

[Scrivener7]

18. "These people" protesting for the right of women to control their own bodies are not as

valid as BLM?

What is your reasoning here?

[stopdiggin]

35. I edited the original

but the point (reasoning) here is that protest is aimed at - and therefore should take into consideration, at the same time trying to sway - public opinion. And even BLM suffered some backlash - when some of the protesters (some claimed provocateurs) went well beyond the bounds of what the public saw as 'legitimate protest.' That's just the way it works.

Hasn't got a single thing to do with 'ranking' injustice or grievance. Talk about missing the point ...

[Scrivener7]

97. Lol. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's not that people here "aren't real

quick on the uptake" or are "missing the point." Maybe it's that what you said was bizarre.

There are people who will take issue with anything we protest. That's the way protest works. If no one is taking issue, the protest is pointless.

[stopdiggin]

120. and alienating a large proportion

of the 'audience' - is most often counter-productive. Making enemies out of people that weren't before - tactically stupid.

as an example - blocking traffic on a major thoroughfare - stupid, and unproductive. As a protest tactic - it's moronic. (with apologies, again, for those that might be a little slow on the uptake)

[Scrivener7]

121. Name a protest that didn't anger a lot of people.

[stopdiggin]

123. we've covered this ground

the BLM protests, when conducted with some civility and good intent, garnered huge sympathies and support in the country. (and far outstripping any 'negative scores' or backlash) Setting fires however- did not. (in the black community or anywhere else)

[Scrivener7]

124. Lol. The BLM protests didn't anger anyone until fires were set?

That's some rock you've been under.

[stopdiggin]

128. didn't say they didn't anger

anyone. Said they had substantive (and majority) public support. (and that it far outstripped any negatives)

[Scrivener7]

130. So you DO support this protest of Kavanaugh. Because it, too, has substantive

public support.

Good to know!

[stopdiggin]

154. I'm not sure where the 'public support' for these most recent

protest falls. But, yes - that would very much be a contributing factor in whether I 'supported' or not.

Also think there is a place for 'unpopular' protest - but it is dependent on what the cause is, and what action is being taken. To claim that all protest is legitimate, justified (or, as in my original post, 'productive') is just silly and cheap rhetoric. Either good, or by other turns, harm can be done to a cause - by the circumstance and manner in which protest takes place.

[Scrivener7]

164. When someone claims that all protest is legitimate, you should tell them that.

Because no one has done that.

You suggested that THIS one isn't.

And a google search will show you the support for this protest.

[stopdiggin]

172. what I suggested

(in fairly clear terms) was that I had some question as to effectiveness, and the possibility of backlash. (note I lay no terms as to legitimacy here at all - except in later posts when discussing 'protest' in general terms)

- Or is there a possibility of backlash and counter-productivity? That's the calculus that runs through my mind. -

(and I still do, despite what google might be telling you this morning)

However - if you are correct (and my skepticism proves wrong) - and this form of protest proves to largely accepted and popular within the general public. Then so be it - and it would gain my endorsement, on the basis of being a boon and an aid to the cause. Helping, or hurting? That is the measure that keeps rising to the top in my considerations - as I hope it would in others as well.

------ ------

[Scrivener7]

175. And after all, we're all on tenterhooks to know if it gains your endorsement.

[stopdiggin]

180. of course not.

But you would perhaps be somewhat interested in the question of whether it aids and abets, or conversely, causes real harm?

[Handler]

137. I don't think I'm slow on the uptake.

I don’t really care about the feelings of the folks I’m protesting against. These people are actively removing rights from American citizens. They are not going to stop at Row, this is just the beginning. Protesting for one’s rights can get messy.

[stopdiggin]

155. none of us care about Kavenaugh's feelings

that you are equally cavalier about the feelings and disadvantage (possible injury) to others that are merely in the line of fire (the motorist that is being blocked/barricaded from picking up her child from daycare) - is probably where you and I part ways.

[MichMan]

21. The ruling has already been issued

What is the goal of the protests? Revenge ?

[ancianita]

27. So? Is that what you'd tell MLK? He'd tell you back: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws

"Consent of the governed" would mean nothing if the public arena weren't full of the governed who protest unjust laws.

[cbabe]

32. Use all tactics. What is the point of any protest? They help get things done.

Note: seeing quite a few posts disparaging protests and other actions. Republicans never gave up their fifty year plan. We need to be helping and supporting and cheering on our team. For as long as it takes.

[LT Barclay]

33. There will be other cases that come up. They could perform their usual logical gymnastics and rule

differently, claim different reason and boom, back where we started.
Or even better a couple of them will resign or keel over in the next year from the stress and a lot of things can get fixed.

[rubbersole]

42. Or maybe indicted for treason.

[Farmer-Rick]

40. So many reasons

So, yeah, they can change their rulings....you know like kings and lords use to do.

It will make them think a little when they declare Evangelical Christianity the only religion for Americans.

Others will see it and think a little before taking more rights away from women.

And yeah, revenge is good and doesn't belong to any imaginary sky daddy.

[MichMan]

50. Maybe they get just get angry at the protests, affecting future rulings ?

All the protests after the leak didn't change their minds. Why would you think these will?

[Farmer-Rick]

65. Well they already seem to hate women

most liberal voters and the working class.

They have pretty well doubled down on their attacks on most liberal policies. Seems to me Clarance and Brett are pretty hatefull already. And if not for Democratic votes they would not be on the court.

So, they get angry....so what, they don't respond to science, logic, legal precedent or the Constitution. They are petty kings passing laws from the bench. Protests are not going to make it any worse.

[Scrivener7]

98. So don't protest because you don't want to upset them? This is what you're saying?

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Whoosh!

That sound was the point rushing over your head.

[brush]

48. Huh? I don't get this. Are you just being contrarian...

for the hell of it? You don't know what public protests against the striking down of Roe is trying to accomplish?

Really?

[stopdiggin]

122. I am hugely in favor of some

types of protest. All forms of protest - even those I believe stand a chance of being counter-productive? No - that kind of blanket support makes little sense to me. I believe the core purpose of protest - is to gain sympathies, win hearts - (and eventually votes)

[brush]

125. Most protestors feel that way. You find out what is effective...

by doing it.

[wnylib]

60. Yes, I think it will be effective.

It will not cause the court to reverse itself.

But it will make the issue front and center in elections. It will keep the public angry enough to vote for their rights. It will motivate the Dem and left leaning Independents who don't vote regularly to make sure they turn out for this issue.

If you are concerned about employees and patrons of a restaurant, then skip the restaurants and focus on the homes and on all public appearances.

[stopdiggin]

126. I'm more or less in agreement

regarding their homes (that seems reasonable fair game). I'm a little less enthusiastic (although probably not quite a definite "no" ) about 'all public appearances' for some of the same reasons I have about the restaurants. I'm kind of ambivalent about targeting (and perhaps alienating) peripheral elements. Those people that didn't have a dog in the fight - but are now going to go home and tell their spouse (and all else) what outrageous crap "those assh*les" were up to at work today.

[wnylib]

135. By public appearances, I am thinking mostly if speaking engagements.

Not drowning them out, just making an appearance outside of the building and being LOUD when the in-justices appear while entering and leaving.

[Scrivener7]

17. I'm in!

[Emile]

19. Their lack of concern for the right to privacy it shouldn't

be any problems with them.

[ancianita]

28. Right. And if they don't like it, there are other states they can go to.

[Initech]

20. Fuck 'em all, especially traitor Thomas!

[panader0]

22. Didn't Thomas say something like; I'm going to spend the next 43 years making Liberal lives

Liberal lives miserable?

[Initech]

26. Yup! And for that, he can go eat the steamiest bag of rancid dog shit imaginable!

[Pepsidog]

49. Why don't wealthy Dems out PI's on R SCOTUS members like the Rs did to get rid of

NY Gov. Spitzer. Spitzer was smart as a whip and could go toe to toe with Wall Street but he was a flawed man. Billionaire Ken Longome (sp?) co-founder of Home Depot hired a PI to follow Spitzer and found he was hiring
escorts. I wonder what Roberts, Ginni, Clarence, Beer Boy, Gorsuch and Alito are doing in their free time. Like the guy who posts Musk’s jet locations in Twitter we need a similar surveillance system on these traitors. Save the money on Barret though, she is too busy following hubby’s commands.

[Scrivener7]

133. This, this, this.

[Blue Owl]

23. Be the pubic hair in Long Dong Silver's Coke

[Magoo48]

24. Yes, yes, and yes.

[cate94]

25. Absolutely!

[gopiscrap]

30. I do fuck em

I also am for protesting their wives, children and parents it's all fair game in today's political climate

[Pepsidog]

39. Just as they have made millions of lives miserable so should their families pay the price. The

families of unwanted pregnancies are upended so should their famines. You reap what you sow. I wish them all a life of sorrow and misery.

[dlk]

31. May the sneering six never have a moment's peace in public again

After intentionally upending the lives of millions os Americans and shredding the Constitution, they deserve nothing less.

[Traildogbob]

34. Hold my beer! 🖐🖖🏿🖖🏾🖖🏽🖖🏻👏👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾👏🏿

[aggiesal]

36. I keep posting this, so people can.use it ...

When discussing the propriety of protesting
outside of supreme court justices' homes,
it's important to remember that in the 90s the court
held that protesting outside of the homes of
abortion clinic employees is protected by the first amendment.

[Pepsidog]

37. They don't deserve a moment of peace or privacy, they deserve neither.

[madashelltoo]

38. ✋🏾

✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾. ✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾✋🏾🤬🤬🤬

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. Yes

Link to tweet

[rubbersole]

44. This is soooo good!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

45. Here is one more

Link to tweet

[rubbersole]

105. Yes!

[electric_blue68]

176. Oh, snap! 😄

[BlueKentuckyGirl]

43. Yes, indeed

This is me, raising my hand.

[lees1975]

46. Hand raised.

Free speech.

[onecaliberal]

47. A thousand times, yes! 🖐🏻

[appleannie1]

55. The next time they protest at a restaurant etc. they need to cover the back door too.

[BlueJac]

57. Count me in!

[AllaN01Bear]

58. si. now he knows what it is like to face a line of protesters and has to retreat via

the back door.

[gulliver]

62. Nope, it's dumb and creates sympathy for Kavanaugh and other such little fellers

[dwayneb]

63. Hand is raised

These politicians pretending to be judges need to feel the heat. Americans will never give up their rights and freedoms meekly without a fight. This is not in our nature.

With that being said, I think the effort will be futile. These "judges" want a seat at the table when we move into full on authoritarianism. Just take a look at how this works in Europe, countries like Poland and Hungary, and any of the other one-party countries across the globe.

It's no different than when the Mafia bought off judges in NYC and Boston, it's exactly the same tactic.

[SalviaBlue]

64. Me, me, me!!!

[mrsadm]

66. I support it!

Wish I lived closer and could be there!

[birdographer]

67. If i lived near any of them

I would SO be in on this! People become very uncomfortable when a large group of people stare unblinkingly at them. They try to get away, they squirm, and the longer the staring goes on, the more uncomfortable they become. I would love to be part of a large group doing nothing but staring at Beer Boy while he eats, while he parks his car and gets out of it at work or the mall, just dozens of eyes ALWAYS on him. No sound, just staring unceasingly. I do not believe that is illegal.

[raccoon]

68. I'm all for it. Nt

[triron]

69. Here Here.

...

[Higherarky]

70. ...

[we can do it]

72. ✋🏼

[Nac Mac Feegle]

73. These people insulated in their bubbles of wealth and privilege

Must realize that there are consequences for their actions.

The law of cause and effect applies to everyone.

[jho]

75. I agree, No Justice No Peace

Yes, I raise my hand and support protesting kavenaugh and his SC buddies everywhere they go.
This also includes barrett,thomas,alito,gorsuch and roberts.

[KentuckyWoman]

76. People should dress up like Jesus and yell Bible verses.

Especially the ones where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees.

[caraher]

84. Matthew 6:5-6 is a good one too

given their BS decision about the football coach

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Stinky The Clown]

77. Absolutely. From now until they repent or die.

[MiHale]

78. 🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️

[summer_in_TX]

79. Let me ask.

Would being on the receiving end of the harassment get you to change your mind? Or would you get mad and double down.

Suppose your friends saw you being publicly harassed. Would they decide you were wrong and deserved it, or that you were being unfairly treated and those harassers were bad guys who need punishment?

I prefer not to do things guaranteed to backfire.

[Arazi]

88. They're not going to change their minds. They're just getting started

They can’t be shamed or embarrassed. The Christofascist contingent of SCOTUS believes they’re doing God’s will.

They sold their souls decades ago. I’m finished coddling them

[Scrivener7]

99. So your approach is to avoid upsetting them so we don't look bad?

[summer_in_TX]

107. Hell no!

Multiplying my personal voter registration efforts by a lot, voter education, and GOTV too, and taking Common Cause’s poll watcher voter protection training.

But I’m not wasting my breath on what doesn’t work and will backfire on us. I don’t think that it will even win us any friends and supporters.

Sure, we are rightfully angry and it would feel good maybe to vent it like that. At least briefly. Personally I find hatred hurts me more than the target. Corrosive.

I like action with higher rates of return myself. Us I only have so much energy and time and can’t afford to let any of it be wasted on what never has and never will work. But that’s just me.

[Scrivener7]

114. You don't think protest works, then? And what does this have to do with hatred?

Do you think protest is an expression of hatred?

(The purpose of protest, by the way, is ALWAYS to make its targets angry and/or uncomfortable. By definition.)

I applaud your efforts. They are essential.

I also applaud the efforts of those directly harrying the people who are taking away our rights.

We need it all right now.

[summer_in_TX]

145. Massive protest rallies can work. Depends.

I've participated in many, from those against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights. Those were very effective over time. Especially the Civil Rights marches because of the morally persuasive voice of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That was in the heyday of protest marches.

TV coverage of the Vietnam War and the protests and the peaceful civil rights marchers (even little kids) being firehosed, having dogs used against them, and beatings and arrests helped.

The police riots of the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968 was a disaster for political opinion and sympathies. The media didn't show the root causes and framed it as out of control hippies. That did a lot to harden pro-police attitudes in the public.

In 1981, 7 months after giving birth to my first son, I had him in a stroller with a sign at the Texas Capitol for a rally against Reagan's budget cuts and the hardship they were causing. His pic was taken as the youngest protester there. In 1984 when Reaganomics caused millions of Americans to become homeless, TV covered the causes and problems that caused formerly middle-class Americans to lose their homes.

But after the proliferation of cable channels and the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine, little sustained coverage of issues occurred. During the Iraq War protests, I participated in many, even flew to DC for one. Wasn't covered on TV and there was only three paragraphs on it in the Washington Post. There was a huge 20K plus protest in NYC that I learned about and watched that stretched for many blocks, but coverage was limited to obscure cable channels. None of the protests made a dent.

I started to realize that the media is just as important as the protests are in getting the public behind the issue. If they just focus their cameras on the counter-protesters instead of opening wide the camera lenses to show the entire protest, the media are influencing their audience. That began happening a lot, after changes in media regulations – not to mention changing financial interests in outcomes.

The Women's Marches during the Trump presidency got some national coverage. Massive ones in Austin at the same time got some coverage, but not as much as you might have thought. Of course, many TV channels covered the worst excesses of some of our protesters and didn't widen the lens often at all to show the truth.

Same with many of the BLM protests until George Floyd's murder. And even still the media distorted quite a few of those. Violence marred those and made them less clear-cut than we wanted (of course a lot of that was Boogaloo Bois and agents provocateurs).

After the Parkland school massacres, gun issues began to get sustained television coverage, as did the marches. They've been having an impact on the national conversation, registered a lot of new voters, and, thank God, finally some legislation. Not as much as we want, but a start.

Now, abortion rights as an issue is massive and because of the 50 year history and the fact that this is the first time in America a broadly held right has been taken away, it's getting a lot of coverage. Our massive rallies help. They keep our energy up, helping us organize and register voters, educate women and others on aspects of why the law hurts women and little girls, and whole family systems too. Not all protests have made further organizing, voter registration, and GOTV main priorities.

But the press could easily turn off positive coverage of the issue. They can cover extreme behavior and political intimidation and turn their lenses away from the important issues. They shape public perception to a very large degree and we need them to tell the sympathetic stories. We don't need them to shift to the story of these poor judges who are being harassed in public places unrelentingly, and media news people losing sympathy with women and their supporters.

[Scrivener7]

165. All of which boils back down to "don't upset people." And I still disagree.

[Higherarky]

132. So, like,

just lay back & enjoy it?

[summer_in_TX]

146. Not at all.

See my other remarks, #107 and #146.

[Higherarky]

149. Thanx, gotcha.

You do you. No one can do that better than you.

Same goes for everyone else, right?

Nite nite, Friend.

[summer_in_TX]

151. I'm pretty limited, my friend.

And certainly I am mistaken at times.

But I've lived awhile, tried some things, and saw social movements that worked and others that went nowhere. This one's important to us all and I want it to be very successful, very rapidly.

My own attitudes were highly colored by Dr. King and other civil rights leaders' approach that they based on the writings of Ghandi. The Mahatma talked of "soul force," satyagraha.

The Civil Rights Movement used nonviolence and the response of the Lester Maddux's, Bull Connor's, and George Wallace's was unbelievably brutal. Similar to the English colonialists' response to Ghandi's nonviolent movement in India. Ghandi didn't think satyagraha would work on Hitler, but the Brits were a different matter. They had ideas of what decency was, and seeing the unjustifiable violence used by their troops against people seeking their political freedom caused them to stop supporting colonialism in India. (I've just read and watched movies about that movement.)

The morality of nonviolent actions and immorality of the state-directed violence against people changed hearts and minds. It worked powerfully in my own conscience, awaking me to my privilege but also the damage to my own soul to be

I don't think the violence, intimidation, or revenge work well. It sure didn't work well for the segregationists trying to hang on to the Jim Crow South in the face of soul force.

[Higherarky]

171. This old-timer thanks you

for the time & effort you spent sharing your thoughts.

I hope you're enjoying a pleasant & peaceful Sunday.

[summer_in_TX]

174. Thank you, Higherarky!

These days we often have few places where we really can share those thoughts. We have lots of disruptions to our social circles, from partisanship and COVID and all these devices too.

Thanks for reading and considering. There are lots of pulls in a lot of directions.

Yes, a lovely Sunday afternoon here in Central Texas. We even had fifteen minutes of a good rain during a drought-plagued summer. Nap too!

Hope you are having a good one yourself!

[Warpy]

80. If I still lived in DC and saw any of those assholes out in public

I'm afraid I would not be able to stifle a boo, a hiss, or a running commentary on the target's ancestry, anatomy, proclivities, and ultimate destination. I might end with a lecture about the separation of church and state as outlined by Jesus, himself, when he kicked the Republicans out of the Temple and when he advised people to give to Caesar that which was Caesar's and to god that which was god's, and ending with the futility of trying to get themselves into heaven on a path paved with the bodies of women they injured and killed by that intolerable ruling.

Then the cops would arrive, of course, but they'd soon realize I was no threat to anyone, an old blind lady with obvious RA, and tell them to get a grip.

[kairos12]

81. Same treatment as abortion clinics.

[caraher]

82. I suppose they think they have a right to be left alone

A right to privacy, perhaps?

Show them what their decisions mean.

[Lunabell]

85. Push your agenda in women's lives.

We're gonna push ours in yours.

[MyMission]

86. I'm raising my middle finger at them

But raising my hand agreeing with you.





Let them see that everywhere they go the majority of US disagrees with their rulings...

[SWBTATTReg]

87. Hey, they impacted the lives of so many of us in so many ways, why shouldn't they too, suffer

from the decisions that everyday Americans make too? They must live w/ their decisions, day in, day out. Personally, I hope protestors will be in their faces for the rest of their lives, since they themselves, interfered in the lives of so many of us.

So if we want to protest in their faces, so be it, we're exercising OUR constitutional right (in their faces, too bad).

They're the ones that picked their choices to accept being a supreme court judge, and then make the non-objective rulings that they are making for others, especially those rulings on things that have been around for a long time (while lying to Congress saying that in fact, they wouldn't change such things, but did anyways) and then, all of a sudden, these things are not constitutional?

Something is wrong here as it infringes on the rights of other Americans (what about their rights that have been just trampled?).

[DemocraticPatriot]

90. I hope they can't find a moment's peace

for the rest of their miserable lives...

[gibraltar72]

93. Actions have consequences. They should never

have a moments peace.

[moonshinegnomie]

96. personally i think it shouldnt be confined to just SC justices

GOP senators and reps should face the same thing

[GoodRaisin]

104. I wouldn't serve them in my establishment

as well as a few certain Republican Congress members.

As far as I’m concerned nothing is off the table for these SC assholes. I hope they have to retreat to their palaces and have to live in them behind concrete walls and razor wire.

[Mickju]

100. They don't deserve a moment of peace.

[drmeow]

101. I support anything

that makes their lives miserable and inconvenient. A living hell would be even better. Agonizing, unrelenting, unmitigated pain 24/7 for the rest of their days would bring me joy. I hope they are jeered and harassed every time they show their smug, entitled, hateful faces in public. I hope I live long enough to dance on and desecrate their graves.

[FailureToCommunicate]

106. ...

[IMPEACHtrump2018]

108. Give tours!

Someone should give tours of the fascist Christian extremist Supreme Court Justices. Protesting them should be on the top 5 things to do when visiting DC!

On your left you might be able to witness Christian Fascist Kavanaugh drinking his rapes away on his front lawn. He often goes there to cry while praying. His top prayer is not to be thrown off the court for lying under oath.

Next up on your right is ….

[BigmanPigman]

110. I wish I lived there so I could join them!

Lying fucks should not have another minute of peace until they drop dead.

[AnrothElf]

112. Wow the Concern Trolls are out in force on this topic.

I understand that on Reddit, but this is DU. Are there still lots of petite Manchins running around here?

[Scrivener7]

127. They're not trolls. They just disagree. I disagree with THEM, but

I'm sure you can do better than this infantile level of discourse.

[FakeNoose]

113. Oh hell yeah

[Higherarky]

116. Comfort the afflicted.

Afflict the comfortable.

[DBoon]

117. yes

[Maraya1969]

129. YES!!!!! Make them pay for their actions.

[wryter2000]

131. Raises hand n/t

[Handler]

134. I think it's a great thing.

There should be massive blowback when you conspire to remove peoples rights.

[Captain Zero]

138. AT Their CHURCHES

Their churches are part of the problem!!

[BHDem53]

139. ✋✋✋✋✋✋👍

[Leith]

140. Both hands waving high in the air

It's well past time that the self-proclaimed exalted ones got a taste of what they spew all over the rest of us. If the SC decrees that cult members can protest at the homes of women's clinic employees, let the supes* see what it feels like.

* "supes" If you have been watching the Amazon Prime show The Boys, you realize what an insult that was. It is about superheroes and their villainy & corruption, and the ragtag group out on a mission to expose them and bring the whole superhero company down.

[keithbvadu2]

141. Do NOT protest! Shower him with never-ending praise, prayers, preaching, and hymns.

Do NOT protest!

Shower him with never-ending praise, prayers, preaching, and hymns.

A bullhorn to support Kav would be nice.

[Eliot Rosewater]

143. Six yrs ago I suggested anytime trump or ANY maga or ANY repub go outdoors

they be SCREAMED At the word SHAME over and over.

This would be good for these fuckers too.

[Scottie Mom]

144. 🤚🏻🤚🏻🤚🏻🤚🏻

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!

[Skittles]

147. fuck that bastard Kavanaugh

he doesn't give a FUCK about the privacy of women, FUCK HIS PRIVACY

[FoxNewsSucks]

150. Hell yes!!!

Fuck then all

[notinkansas]

152. Hand raised!! Up high!!

[BunnyMcGee]

153. Very much in agreement

Hand raised

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

156. 🤚

[RocRizzo55]

157. 🤚🏼🤚🏻🤚🤚🏽🤚🏾🤚🏿 n.t.

[patricia92243]

158. Alito is the one. I keep hearing Kavenaugh but not Alito. He is the one who

should be getting all if not the most attention.

[eShirl]

159. how about take all that energy and help pregnant women get to a sane state when they need a ride

seems more productive

[bucolic_frolic]

162. No food, no gasoline for these people. They are not in the Constitution. /nt

[DFW]

166. Protesting, yes! Harassing, no.

I would just stand there silently, with fingers pointed, in numbers and with signs, until it becomes intolerable for them.

Make them pariahs, not victims. They welcome martyrdom, cannot handle the shame. They may think they are doing the work of some god they will never see or hear, but let them know they are working against the will of over a hundred million Americans who are both visible and have plenty to say.

[OverBurn]

168. Hell yes I do.

[moonshinegnomie]

169. a group is offering up to $250 for SC sightings

$50 for a confirmed sighting $200 is they are still there 30 minutes later

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/09/shutdowndc-supreme-court-abortion-roe-protest

[Paladin]

170. Absolutely. No rest for the wicked. (nt)

[DLevine]

173. Hand raised. nt

[electric_blue68]

177. Hand raised

[Initech]

178. They deliberately and intentionally lied under oath and screwed half the country.

Not only that, they were corrupted by religious zealots on top of that. They should not be allowed to eat, sleep, dine out, or attend events peacefully. Fuck 'em all.