General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNO! NO! NO! No protection for the supremes until we have protection against ASSAULT RIFLES!! CRAZY,
ANGRY PEOPLE BUYING GUNS!!!
Those 9 justices can be replaced far more easily than our kids! It is insane and infuriating that the house and senate would even CONSIDER taking up those bills to protect the 9 adults on the supreme court before they would protect 335 MILLION citizens. Are the supremes more precious to the USA than our kids? Our people of color? Our LGBTQ friends? Our mall goers? Our grocery store shoppers? And the people who just want to go to church and find peace?
NO!!! Vote these bastards out of the house and senate for even considering such legislation BEFORE taking care of the underlying problem! I'm so friggin' sick and tired of the house and senate deciding who's valuable and who's not.
If they pass gun control, it would take care of the supremes, too.
Beachnutt
(7,974 posts)someone corrected me in that if it was justice Sotomayors house would I feel the same way.....hmmm
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,017 posts)BComplex
(8,937 posts)anyone else. I say NO! I don't care if it's Biden, Pelosi, or even Elizabeth Warren or Katie Porter or Sheldon Whitehouse or Stacy Abrams!!! (heros all).
It's WRONG to protect those 9 rather than the 335 million.
dchill
(40,003 posts)drmeow
(5,211 posts)WOULD protect those 9 - that's what is so asinine about it!
BComplex
(8,937 posts)That's what's so infuriating.
drmeow
(5,211 posts)not special SCOTUS protection would mean SCOTUS would be less likely to legislate from the bench by declaring it unconstitutional!
BComplex
(8,937 posts)That would plug up a nasty hole in our justice for the time being!
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,437 posts)dixiechiken1
(2,113 posts)Did so because he saw US marshals outside. I think that's to whom he turned himself in, as well.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)jimfields33
(18,328 posts)Demsrule86
(70,760 posts)eat cake.
orleans
(34,717 posts)and i'm not sure what we did to protect her... i don't think much was done.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/19/politics/sotomayor-salas-supreme-court-security/index.html
BComplex
(8,937 posts)But now it's an illegitimate republican lying justice, and all of a sudden we're going to protect him???? That's what I mean!! NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!! Protect ALL OF US or protect NOBODY.
delisen
(6,359 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,489 posts)Should contain an assault rifle ban and other protections that will keep them (and everyone else) safe.
There needs to be an "act" that protects ALL of us! THAT is the job of our elected officials. Why else have a government at all if they don't protect their citizens?
rgbecker
(4,871 posts)Can't they just strap on a 9mm like everyone else has to?
Besides, the cops might be afraid to protect them, too, for fear of taking a bullet.
aka-chmeee
(1,152 posts)In the history of the Supreme Court, there has been one actual attempted assassination. This latest thing seems pretty lame so far as an attempted murder. 5 Federal court justices have been killed by firearms.
Every year almost 8000 children and teens are victims of firearm violence. 1800 of them die.
Almost 1000 are murdered.
Now, who is it you think needs immediate action by Congress?
TheRealNorth
(9,628 posts)Where was all the concern and rage by Republicans then?
BComplex
(8,937 posts)No wonder they're not hesitating to show their hypocrisy over one of their fraudulent appointees.
Cozmo
(1,402 posts)Give them a bit of their own medicine
samsingh
(17,827 posts)BComplex
(8,937 posts)thinking!
I'm outraged that the house/senate can even be considering this legislation ONLY to protect the supremes from guns. WTF????
erronis
(16,630 posts)Just because I trust Wikipedia a lot more than most news sources and the utterances of the SCOTUS.
Prominent adherents of these ideologies include Calvinist Christian reconstructionism, Charismatic and Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology, and the New Apostolic Reformation.[1][2] Most of the contemporary movements labeled dominion theology arose in the 1970s from religious movements asserting aspects of Christian nationalism. Roman Catholic integralism is also sometimes considered to fall under the dominionist umbrella, but the Catholic integralist movement is much older and theologically markedly different from Protestant dominionism, since it is tied to the doctrine of the Catholic Church as being the only true church.
Some[who?] have applied the term dominionist more broadly to the whole Christian right. This usage is controversial. Some members of these communities[citation needed] claim to be concerned that this is a label being used to marginalize them from public discourse.
Mad_Machine76
(24,755 posts)My dudes and dudettes.
MyOwnPeace
(17,234 posts)You want action?
Answer this:
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN SINCE DECEMBER 14, 2012? (Sandy Hook)
RSherman
(576 posts)And the Republicans tried to scare Americans by saying Dems would create "death panels" to see who lives and dies under Obamacare. Meanwhile, they decide whose lives are important and who deserves protection. Mitch M's fake outrage is sickening.
And, as one other poster stated, Repubs want teachers to be armed so they can protect themselves and their students. By that thinking, arm the justices and make them responsible for protecting themselves and all the SCOTUS staffers, clerks, etc.
BComplex
(8,937 posts)Arm them and make sure there's only one way in or out of their homes and places of work!
dchill
(40,003 posts)Then we'll talk about "special protection" for SCOTUS.
Quanto Magnus
(997 posts)pleebs...
Gotta protect the royalty at all costs....
AllaN01Bear
(22,667 posts)Oppaloopa
(889 posts)were done by extreme right wing crazies?
TheRealNorth
(9,628 posts)Our side has mentally unwell people too. We just don't encourage them to commit violence and make it as easy as possible to obtain a firearm.
keithbvadu2
(39,513 posts)Are children less important than those judges?
If the answer is 'YES', then say so.
BComplex
(8,937 posts)Let's hear them say that the justices are more important than the kids that were killed. Because THAT is what such an action would show.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)And he can buy a gun and have his spouse protect the family.
Seems fine to me.
Oppaloopa
(889 posts)Brainfodder
(7,141 posts)How about we not let just 9 represent us in the most important matters?
area51
(12,084 posts)karynnj
(59,852 posts)It is an asinine, stupid, idiotic argument in the case of the teachers, who will, under pressure, already have many things that they do to try to save their students. Not to mention, I assume the gun would logically have to be locked up and unloaded until needed. This means even if the teacher were an ex Marine sharp shooter, in the case in Uvalde, he/she would still have moved to lock the door as the first step before retrieving and loading the gun. At which point, he/she would likely have been shot just as the teacher was. This ignores all the other reasons why guns do not belong in the class room.
As to the SCJ, they could obviously opt to arm themselves. In addition, they already have some protection from federal marshals. The impetus of the bill to begin with was to prevent protestors outside their homes.
BComplex
(8,937 posts)because they're doing their jobs, and the right wing idiots have made shooting them and their students into a sport...WITH THE BLESSING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
raccoon
(31,385 posts)Retrograde
(10,553 posts)let them pay for their own protection