Re: This is on both sides
Both sides have their pet wedge issues that they could have resolved when the had majority in both houses and the presidency, but they don’t simply because those wedge issues are used for fundraising the debacle we face daily from Washington DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CitizenBBN
Trump is famous for stoking a crowd, and his doing so on Jan. 6th was obviously over the line and encouraged a level of behavior that was deeply troubling and violent.
But Biden and Pelosi camp have done exactly the same thing against SCOTUS, and now we see the results with someone trying to kill a Justice.
Remember the attack on GOP Representatives at a baseball park? That one got little play in the mainstream press b/c he was a Bernie Sanders supporter.
The violence across our cities with BLM and Antifa, who have had political cover from those in power who benefit from this unrest, has only escalated the situation.
The demonization of anyone who disagrees is the end of discourse, the end of democracy and liberty.
Trump should have made his claims but in the context of having to respect the process, b/c the process must endure past a single election.
Biden should have made his arguments about Roe v. Wade but demanded respect for the Court, because the Court must endure past a single decision.
It's fine for politicians to have their views. it is not fine for them to call for bringing down the process and institutions that bind us as a nation.
The Left has been doing this far more than the Right of late, which is interesting b/c that's a big reversal from just a few decades ago. Trump has been the primary and often only voice on the RIght doing it, whereas the Left has become a chorus of the ends justifying the means.
Sadly it will only get worse, as far too many in power are getting more rich and more powerful the more we are divided as a people. There's no money in solving the problems.
Re: This is on both sides
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Catonahottinroof
Both sides have their pet wedge issues that they could have resolved when the had majority in both houses and the presidency, but they don’t simply because those wedge issues are used for fundraising the debacle we face daily from Washington DC.
Exactly.
Obviously the Senate requires, by design, some compromise, but they are out there to be had on at least some issues.
neither side is interested in them of course.
Right now the Left is a bigger problem, bc/ of the rise of the extreme left. 40 years ago I would have said the Right was the bigger problem due to the strong more far right influence.
But BLM and Antifa and the Squad have made Jerry Falwell and the New Right look downright mainstream by comparison. Also b/c of the left's control over academia and the media they are systematically working to shut down discourse and debate, which is only going to make the chasm worse.
it's dangerous when people think they don't have a voice.
In this case Pelosi all but told people to threaten Justices, refusing among other obvious things to vote to extend increased security to the Court and the Justices. The Biden administration encouraged "peaceful protests", but this flies in the face of FEDERAL STATUTES which say outright that protesting in a way to directly influence a judge is illegal. clearly descending on their private homes and families is a form of intimidation.
Biden should have said people can and should protest, but do so at SCOTUS, not at their homes, and Congress and the President should have acted immediately to a) denounce intimidation tactics of ANY judicial official over any case, and b) provided whatever protection would be needed to protect the Court.
What Americans need to do is call it out on both sides fairly. Trump IMO is not fit to hold office due to his dangerous handling of election protests, despite the fact he didn't tell them to storm Congress. Likewise Biden didn't tell people to kill justices, but he had to know that anything short of a rebuke was going to be seen as a green light, just as with Trump.
our leaders are acting with complete disregard for the long term damage they are doing. It's a matter of time before some lunatic kills a Justice and other officials if our leaders don't reverse course.
Re: This is on both sides
Take away all government sponsored security service from the presence of Chickie boy, and if he wants to fee more secure let him hire private security services to protect his smiley arse.
Re: This is on both sides
The Senate UNANIMOUSLY passed a bill to increase SCOTUS security when the protests started, but Pelosi and the House refuse to bring the bill to the floor.
GOP minority has tried now for two days to get unanimous consent to bring it, and she and the leadership continue to block it:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...tens-kavanaugh
They say b/c they want to protect other employees of the Court as well, but have not moved on protecting anyone at this point, and I know of no negotiations to have the Senate so expand the groups so it can pass quickly. At least nothing I can find.
Usually when that's the case it's just a stall tactic, which is b/c they WANT this pressure on SCOTUS right now. Again, wholly irresponsible. They could pass this measure and still work on expanding it, or quickly negotiate to have a revised and expanded bill brought to the Senate floor. The GOP would not object so it could get on the docket easily and quickly.
Re: This is on both sides
I don’t trust the “uniparty” or mainstream media. They are all into “narrative” not truth. These “elites” want to continue their gravy train and have no regard for the “serfs” aka lower to middle income people.
They are in cahoots with the WHO/WTO/ WEF who want to take away or sovereignty and right to defend ourselves. They are fine with globalism and the “great reset”. As they/Klaus Schwab state from the WEF their plan for the masses is “You will own NOTHING and be happy”. It’s all by design,
Re: This is on both sides
Clearly since they are for an open border with no more immigration laws they definitely are as pro globalism as one can get.
FWIW Biden has yet to comment at all on the attempted assassination of a SCOTUS Justice. can you imagine the media outrage had Trump not done so?
Re: This is on both sides
As for the bill for enhanced SCOTUS security, no need. JUST ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS! We don't need more money spent to do nothing if the DOJ / Merritt Garland ignore the issue. The idea is false blusters, an attempt to look like something is attempted to be done but will have ZERO consequence if law enforcement won't do what they were charged to do.
Re: This is on both sides
The bill will provide direct security when off duty to Justices and families, which would be in addition to the current law against people doing things like they are doing to try to influence a judge.
The Democrats are in extremely dangerous territory. They have allowed BLM/ANtifa to run rampant because they think it helps them push their political agenda, and that dividing the country will help inflame their base. They are now allowing direct undermining of the entire justice system by saying it's OK to try to intimidate judges at the very highest levels. This after putting up with months and months of attacks on a federal courthouse in Portland.
This is nothing but allowing the system to be undermined for short term political gain. It's ironic that doing that is one of the biggest criticisms of Trump. This was claimed against him his entire term when really the Jan 6th incident is the only case against him, and it's not clear that his actions there were any different from exactly what Biden is doing with SCOTUS now or what others allowed at a city and state level for 2+ years.
We're unraveling the norms that hold our nation together. We always disagreed on what to do but we had a basic agreement on the process by which we resolve our differences. As we undermine those institutions with everything from open borders to SCOTUS intimidation we lose the fabric that allows us to function.
Re: This is on both sides
Enforce the laws on the books. There are laws against violence to all, even when "off duty". If there is a perceived threat against me or my family, I contact the police who would protect me. SC justices and their family are no different. This bill is just fluff so there is an impression of doing something when if the laws were applied there would be no need. Had the laws been applied to terrorist like BLM and antifa, organizations who participated in violence, and then were subsequently charged with crimes, the actions against the justices and others they "disagree with" would be discourage. Currently, because the existing laws have been ignored, there is some sense more laws are needed. They are not. If the current DOJ, the one run by Merrit Garland elects to ignore this legislation, as they do others, it is all for naught. Ignored laws are worthless laws
Re: This is on both sides
This just allows them to have a security detail without a specific threat. Legally as you described, without a specific threat the cops can't give you a detail. There is also no funding for such details, which has to come from Congress.
Justices basically now need a Secret Service detail of their own. Unfortunately that now seems to be a necessary thing for judges.
