|
|
| Mitch McConnell Proven Right (1900402) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1900462) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 11:46:27 2022, in response to Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jun 9 20:55:57 2022. he refuses to act when federal law is violated by protesters at Supreme court justice's homePerhaps he read the first amendment to the US Constitution to wit: 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. He realized that any federal law that prevented people from peacefully assembling was unenforceable. Here's the latest regarding the arrest of the person who is accused of attempting Kavanaugh's murder. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/09/roske-kavanaugh-911-tapes/ New 911 tapes show how man accused in Kavanaugh murder plot abandoned plan Authorities say Nicholas Roske was set to sneak into justice’s home with pad-soled boots for quiet walking By Dan Morse June 9, 2022 at 7:23 p.m. EDT Fresh off a flight from California, Nicholas Roske grabbed a cab to the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, according to court records. It was 1 a.m. What he had packed in his bags, law enforcement officials said Thursday, underscored just how serious he was at carrying out his plan to kill the conservative justice: burglary tools, a gun and a pair of made-to-be-quiet boots with outer soles that could allow stealth movement inside a house. “The boots with padding really raised red flags,” said Capt. Sean Gagen, commander of the Montgomery County Police Department’s Bethesda district. As detailed as Roske’s plans may have been, court records and newly released 911 calls also document how quickly he abandoned them. Once arriving to the Maryland home early Wednesday, Roske spotted two deputy U.S. marshals, part of Kavanaugh’s security detail, standing outside a car, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court. He walked away, turned a corner and called 911 to turn himself in. “I’m standing now, but I can sit, whatever. I want to be fully compliant,” Roske said, according to a copy of the 911 call released Thursday by the Montgomery County Police Department. “So whatever they want me to do, I’ll do.” County officers soon pulled up and arrested Roske without incident. Federal officials have charged Roske with attempted murder of a federal judge. According to the FBI affidavit, Roske was upset by the leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion, supported by Kavanaugh, signaling that the court is positioned to overturn Roe v. Wade. He was also worried that in the wake of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Tex., the justice “would side with 2nd Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws,” according to the affidavit. On the 911 recordings, Roske calmly answered questions, telling the operator how he had just flown in from California and had planned to hurt Kavanaugh and then himself. He said that his gun was locked in a case in his suitcase and that he needed psychiatric help. Eventually, sirens could be heard. “They’re here. I’m going to hang up,” he said. At a court appearance Wednesday afternoon, neither Roske nor his attorney addressed the specific allegations. When U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan asked him if he understood the proceedings, Roske said: “I think I have a reasonable enough understanding, but I wouldn’t say I’m thinking clearly.” As Sullivan inquired further, Roske said only that he was on medication and that he had taken that medication on Wednesday. He later clarified that he had “a clear enough understanding” to proceed. He remains detained pending further court proceedings. The attorney, federal public defender Andrew Szekely, as well as Roske’s family members in California, could not be reached for comment Thursday. As a legal matter, the fact that Roske didn’t follow through on his alleged plans might not necessarily help him, analysts said. All of the actions Roske took, at least according to the FBI affidavit, probably put him over the threshold of “substantial steps beyond mere preparation” that is generally required to be convicted of attempted murder in federal court, according to Robert Bonsib, a defense attorney in Maryland. “His steps, as stated in the affidavit, were so substantial and well down the road towards completing the crime that an abandonment defense may be difficult,” Bonsib said. The 911 recordings offered a possible window into Roske’s mind-set. Parts are redacted, such as his name and his descriptions of medical issues. He called 911 twice. The first call lasted only a minute. The 911 operator asked where he was. By then, Roske had walked around a corner and was about two blocks from the justice’s home. “Let me try to find a street sign,” he said, adding, “Give me one moment and I’ll call back, okay?” And he did, this time providing a better location and his name. He spoke about bad thoughts he was having. “I’ve been having them for a long time,” he said. “I’m from California. I came over here to act on them.” He said he intended to hurt himself and someone else. “Do you have access to any weapons?” the 911 operator asked. “Yes. I brought a firearm with me, but it’s unloaded and locked in the case,” the caller said. “Okay. Where’s the firearm now?” the operator responded. “It’s in a suitcase. It’s a black suitcase,” Roske said, according to the recording. “I’m standing near it, but the suitcase is zip-tied shut. I just came from the airport.” Roske said he hadn’t been drinking or using drugs. When asked if he needed medical attention, Roske said, “I need psychiatric help.” Roske indicated his target was "Brett Kavanaugh … the Supreme Court justice.” He said he had learned his address, in part, after seeing photographs online of protests outside Kavanaugh’s home. As police officers were on their way, the operator tried to keep Roske calm by, among other topics, asking him if he had any pets at home. Roske said he did — a cockapoo named Molly. |
|
|
| (1900467) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 11:56:42 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 11:46:27 2022. The US Marshals Service is part of the DOJ. So the DOJ was protecting the Supreme Court after all. So much for the OP’s latest vitriol. Perhaps he ought to update his enemies list. |
|
|
| (1900469) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 12:00:13 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 11:56:42 2022. Garland, who should be on the Supreme Court, protecting a member of the Supreme Court. A bit ironic. |
|
|
| (1900474) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:18:59 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 11:46:27 2022. I can't hold back. You are a fucking moron. Free speech has limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There is a law, in fact 2 of them prohibiting protests at residences or courthouses with the intent to influence outcomes or decisions by judges or jurors. Two laws on the books. How fucking stupid are you? |
|
|
| (1900475) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 12:19:30 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 11:56:42 2022. Garland, who should be on the Supreme Court, protecting a member of the Supreme Court. A bit ironic. |
|
|
| (1900482) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:23:35 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 11:56:42 2022. It's hardly vitriol expecting that pussy to arrest illegal protesters at the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Geez, look who I'm expecting to ethics. |
|
|
| (1900488) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 12:43:26 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:18:59 2022. If you had any reading comprehension skills, you’d see where it was claimed the law was unenforceable. If you actually knew anything about “ethics” you’d know what the attorney general’s duties are. |
|
|
| (1900489) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 12:43:50 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:23:35 2022. “Ethics”. Is that your new word, Polly? |
|
|
| (1900490) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 12:47:02 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:18:59 2022. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.The quote, by Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States, was "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Schenck v. US was about distributing flyers against the draft during World War I. That Schenk v. US was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The current restriction is "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action [e.g., a riot] and is likely to incite or produce such action." |
|
|
| (1900493) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 12:50:02 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 12:43:26 2022. the law was unenforceablePerhaps this is what you meant, but how do you establish that the purpose of demonstrating was to change the outcome of a court decision? Most likely, the purpose is just to make the justice feel bad (and to influence legislation). |
|
|
| (1900495) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 10 12:55:11 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 12:00:13 2022. He totally proved himself unfit for the supreme court with the messes he's been involved with in this administration |
|
|
| (1900500) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 13:19:37 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 12:50:02 2022. What do you mean what I meant? I was paraphrasing someone else and also agreeing.I don’t think it matters. Ultimately it’s unconstitutional as it implicates three of the first amendment rights (petition is the third). It’s only when it gets violent that it’s a problem, but that’s true of all assembly and why peaceful protests have cops posted. |
|
|
| (1900501) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 13:20:06 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 10 12:55:11 2022. Such as? |
|
|
| (1900505) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 10 13:37:04 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 13:19:37 2022. Yeah, I should have said what the item you were paraphrasing meant. |
|
|
| (1900510) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 14:19:41 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 12:47:02 2022. I could explain it to you but I obviously cannot understand it for you. |
|
|
| (1900511) | |
Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 10 14:29:21 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 12:18:59 2022. Free speech has limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theaterOh, this again. How many times have you heard that word in a theater anyhow? And if anyone yelled it, would there be a panicked rush for the exits or would everyone tell the loudmouth to "STFU"? |
|
|
| (1900512) | |
thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 10 14:32:52 2022, in response to Re: Mitch McConnell Proven Right, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 11:46:27 2022. What are you blathering about?It is perfectly legal to prevent people from trying to unduly influence a Supreme Court Justice's decision, and any manner of "protest" to that end will not be peaceful by definition. |
|
|
| (1900513) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 14:35:04 2022, in response to thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 10 14:32:52 2022. Fuck you |
|
|
| (1900514) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 15:32:30 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 14:35:04 2022. So much for your respect for the law |
|
|
| (1900515) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 15:51:21 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 15:32:30 2022. What law? Nothing that he posted remotely resembled the law. |
|
|
| (1900516) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by chicagoMotorman on Fri Jun 10 15:57:27 2022, in response to thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 10 14:32:52 2022. 
|
|
|
| (1900517) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Jun 10 16:34:13 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 15:51:21 2022. Maybe the law that Bauman posted? The one that makes protecting Justices unconstitutional. |
|
|
| (1900518) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 16:36:05 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Easy on Fri Jun 10 16:34:13 2022. Olog-heil’s “analysis” of that is just pure bullshit. |
|
|
| (1900519) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 17:19:28 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 16:36:05 2022. Your usual word-humping aside, IIRC 18US Code 1503 and 1507 make it a federal crime to protest in front of a courthouse or the home of a judge or juror with the purpose of influencing a decision or outcome. Clearly, the group, 'Ruth Sent Us' are protesting at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices with the express purpose of getting them to vote so that Roe is not overturned. That there is a federal law and merrick garland refuses to enforce it is what I am referring to. That Bauman failed to understand this is excusable for a doddering old man. For a steward of the law to excuse it is not. |
|
|
| (1900520) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 17:21:45 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 17:19:28 2022. Baumann explained why Garland is allegedly not enforcing it. |
|
|
| (1900524) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 20:00:25 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 17:21:45 2022. I did too. He's a partisan socialist pussy. Protests are not speech. They are actions. |
|
|
| (1900525) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 20:01:01 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 17:21:45 2022. I did too. He's a partisan socialist pussy. Protests are not speech. They are actions. |
|
|
| (1900526) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 20:03:15 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 20:00:25 2022. Protests are not only speech, they are also assembly and petitions. |
|
|
| (1900540) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 22:54:04 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 20:03:15 2022. Not when they are tresspassing |
|
|
| (1900542) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 10 23:20:41 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 22:54:04 2022. That’s illegal regardless, and it’s a state law. |
|
|
| (1900543) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 23:53:21 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 22:54:04 2022. We are talking of plain text of federal law. They are not permitted to protest at the courthouse or residence of a judgebor juror with the intent to singe the outcome of a trial or Supreme Court decision. Free speech plays no part because the law sees protest as an action which is certainly no protected. |
|
|
| (1900544) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 00:37:11 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 10 23:53:21 2022. Free speech (and assembly, and petition) is in the Constitution. The Constitution supersedes the US Code. |
|
|
| (1900545) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jun 11 05:46:08 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 00:37:11 2022. But one could read the statute as Constitutional if the conduct met standard of a recognized exception like that for “true threats,” which it could plausibly be argued applies here. |
|
|
| (1900546) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 11 08:06:55 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 00:37:11 2022. Perhaps yours is an oversimplication"Limits on Picketing The protesters may argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that falls short of harassment. The problem, however, is that federal law appears to prohibit their action. The "Picketing or Parading" law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty," cannot picket near a judge's residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both. The distinction is important: This law doesn't speak to gatherings of people who protest a court's decision but focuses instead on gatherings that seek to influence a decision. And in this case, with a leaked draft that is not yet final, the appearance of attempted influence is clear. There is also precedent. In the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. Louisiana, justices concluded that picketing outside courtrooms and judges' homes with the intent to influence decisions "infringes a substantial state interest in protecting the judicial process." The majority opinion insisted that "mob law is the very antithesis of due process." Legal experts are weighing in and concluding that the law appears to be clear. "The statute would seem to apply both because they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations," said Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University's Law School." |
|
|
| (1900547) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 08:52:33 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jun 11 05:46:08 2022. But in this case, he didn’t violate the statute until he actually showed up outside Kavanaugh’s home, at which point he turned himself in for the crime of attempted murder. So how exactly has the DOJ failed here? There were US marshals there ready to enforce enforceable laws. |
|
|
| (1900548) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 08:56:22 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 11 08:06:55 2022. Interesting that you cite a 1965 precedent. I wonder if 1965 makes it more precedential than if the opinion were written in 1973. |
|
|
| (1900549) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 11 09:54:20 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 08:56:22 2022. I dont know. I am just a layman. It seems to me that this supports 18USC1507. |
|
|
| (1900553) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jun 11 10:56:35 2022, in response to thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 10 14:32:52 2022. What possible rational reason can you have for typing the subject backwards? The key word is rational. |
|
|
| (1900561) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 11 11:45:30 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jun 11 05:46:08 2022. The armed guy is a criminal for all sorts of reasons.What is highly questionable is whether a picketer holding up a sign and shouting non-threatening statements is a criminal, all the more so if the statements don't urge the justice to change his vote. |
|
|
| (2046921) | |
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Oct 16 09:11:15 2026, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by chicagoMotorman on Fri Jun 10 15:57:27 2022. Excuse me? |
|
|