Why, on Democratic Underground,

[sarisataka]

Do I see multiple people asking about and even suggesting assassinating SCOTUS Justices?

Who are we becoming?

[Rebl2]

1. Never

would wish that.

[senseandsensibility]

2. I haven't seen that

I would alert if I did.

[MuseRider]

3. That is certainly the best way

and quickest way to get rid of that. I have been away more than usual because of the storms so I have not seen that but will certainly alert if I do.

[sarisataka]

6. Look on page 1 of GD

There is more than 1 OP

[KS Toronado]

30. Which OP's ? Let's get them taken down !

[hlthe2b]

4. Venting (very inappropriately). But that is not allowed here

[wnylib]

5. Guess I missed those posts, but if that's happening,

it's way out of line.

[sarisataka]

7. Look in GD...

[wnylib]

10. Haven't they been alerted and removed yet?

That's the kind of post that can get the poster a visit from the FBI.

[sarisataka]

11. .

[MustLoveBeagles]

27. I alerted on the one I saw

That has no place here

[Fla Dem]

8. Not allowed. Please report if and when you see any post suggesting physical harm to anyone.

I have not seen one so hopefully someone did report, and they were removed.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Alert on it.

[perfessor]

12. Nobody is suggesting that.

People are asking - quite appropriately imo- if a president ordering such would fall within the bounds of the trump team’s argument.

[kentuck]

26. It would probably be helpful for the Justices to understand that they would make themselves....

...vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.

[LT Barclay]

31. I'd love to see the someone present this discussion to them in exactly those terms.

[soldierant]

36. Heck, even Joyce Vance pointed out

that many of them don't get it until they hear a hypothetical which touches them personally.

[Elessar Zappa]

13. I haven't seen people doing that.

What I’ve seen is people talking about the implications of giving a President immunity using Biden ordering the assassination of justices as an example of that, not people actually calling for it.

[sheshe2]

14. No, not seeing that at all.

What is being discussed is the discussion at SCOTUS by TSF's lawyer. Assassination was brought up during said discussion.

NO ONE on DU is advocating assassination.

[sarisataka]

17. The most explicit one said

If SCOTUS rules for immunity the next day Biden should "send them to Gitmo, though I wouldn't object to just having them killed"

I see that post has finally been hidden. It was not a new, or low post count poster.

There are several less explicit "just kidding" ones that are still up.

[LeftInTX]

15. I think one hypothetical post about the scenario is enough, but that's just my opinion.

I think that about a lot of things.

Who knows maybe if it's repeated enough the SCOTUS justices will read and think, "Oh we can't have that..."

But then, they will just write some iron-clad decision with a work-around that will protect Trump and no one else. Like, "Total immunity applies for any president who served from the period Jan 20, 2017 - Jan 20, 2021. We base this on astronomical and astrological forces of the time period Jan 20, 2017 - Jan 20, 2021"

[Lucky Luciano]

20. The SCOTUS will come up with a pseudo legal argument why only

…the president who was 45th gets to commit crimes, but no other president can.

Indeed!

[Hekate]

16. That's a reasonable observation and question

[revmclaren]

18. There is one responce to a post in GD

that explicitly mentions assassination that is still up.

This never would have been allowed in the past.

Edit: this post responce now has multiple Recs. No wonder it's still up.

[surfered]

19. My question about the President assassinating a Supreme Court Justice was to show how silly Trump's argument is.

No one is suggesting it be done.

[mzmolly]

21. It's meant to provoke thought. Not to be taken seriously.

eom

[sdfernando]

22. I get the sense they are more

hypothetical thought exercises than actual wishing for it to happen.

[DemocraticPatriot]

33. That is one point of view...

[elocs]

41. Or...can a hypothetical thought exercise be used like Trump using a quote to get around violating the gag order?

If a hypothetical thought exercise needs too much explaining so as not to be mistaken for a suggestion, perhaps it should not be made at all. Clearly there are people here who understood it as a suggestion and not a hypothetical thought exercise.

[kentuck]

23. It's a propaganda tsunami.

People are over-whelmed by all the shit on the walls...

[Skittles]

24. go ahead and post some links

I have not seen one yet, and if I did I would report it.......sounds you may not be understanding the context.

[dchill]

25. Satirists. We are becoming satirists.

[Brenda]

42. And trolls never sleep. nt

[mucifer]

28. People need to be careful about what they post. Even when trying to be funny.

That's my opinion. Think twice about it before you post it.

Lots of times I think about posts hurting people's feelings.

But, venting violent thoughts in DU is bad.

[chouchou]

32. Steam release.

[PatrickforB]

34. I have not seen such things, but if so will surely alert. That is not OK. Just because

the right wing speaks of these things does not mean we should.

Ever.

We must be careful not to stoop to the adversary's cruelty and corruption, because if we do then how are we any better?

[mahina]

35. I have not seen that once. Never mind multiple times.

That kind of stuff is with the Alert button is for. One possible reason that you are seeing that is because there are people working in here to stir shit up. No DUer I have ever known would do so.

[mountain grammy]

37. If you can't link to examples

it ain't happening. I haven't seen anything like that

[sarisataka]

38. A direct link could be considered a call out

And itself a prohibited post. Others above say they have seen what I have.

[JT45242]

39. I suggested raising the hypothetical in court...

If a president ordered the assassination of the chief justice because the president believed the justice to be corrupt, rather than a political opponent, would it be an official act.

I wanted justice Jackson to put the ridiculous argument to its logical extension. A president with immunity would just kill and replace the SCOTUS.

I was not advocating for it. But, it it is the logical end game.

Hey Clarence, you willing to give a guy who loves neoNazis and white supremacists the power to kill you without fear of prosecution?

[Think. Again.]

40. I think "asking about" and discussing...

...the ramifications of what's now being considered by the SC is not only an appropriate thing but also an important thing to do.

I haven't seen any posts "suggesting" any assassinations be committed though.

[Voltaire2]

43. Gee it just might be rhetorical hyperbole

about the absurdity of presidential immunity.

[sarisataka]

45. My rule of thumb is simple

If I won't tolerate it from the right, I won't excuse it from the left- hyperbole or no

Our goal should not be to be no worse than our opponents, we should be clearly better

[WhiskeyGrinder]

44. Scratch a liberal...