Inexcusable
-
So the leftist pop culture mob and its cheerleaders in the white house are ok with judge's personal lives being disrupted by every legal means possible, if the mob doesn't agree with them.
Imagine the hue and cry from the left if these mobs were right-leaning, angry about a left-leaning supreme court opinion. Imagine right-leaning mobs outside the home of the dearly departed RBG. Oh, the fainting couches that would have been required. Our cherished institutions, subverted by the Deplorables! Tantamount to an insurrection!
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Schumer.
Somehow I doubt his analogy of whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.
@Horace said in Inexcusable:
Somehow I doubt his analogy to whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.
You're such a skeptic.
I eagerly await the hundreds of videos of the protestors outside of Senator Schumer's home. He's been in the Senate since 1999 - 23 years, or, about 1100 weeks.
So, according to the senator, there have been at least 3000 protests at his home. Surely there must be at least 100 videos documenting this.
-
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I reported the following tweet to Twitter, because it explicitly called for Supreme Court justices to be assassinated:
The cartoon in question also called for the assassination of justices, albeit with a tiny fig leaf of deniability:
The response I got from Twitter regarding the explicit call for assassination: sorry, doesn’t violate our terms of service!
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.32-AM-450x233.png
The email included a helpful list of material that would violate the terms of service. It includes a prohibition on, not just threats, celebrations of violence, and promoting terrorism or violent extremism, but also wishing harm on someone:
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.40-AM-392x450.png
This is a total joke. I see a lot of people saying “Elon Musk will fix this!” but his proposed standard is to allow anything that passes First Amendment muster, and this probably would. That said, apparently the people doing the moderation are useless and the Elon Musk standard already prevails, unless you misgender someone. So Elon really wouldn’t hurt much.
Meanwhile, people are protesting outside the homes of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in an effort to influence their votes, which is illegal under a statute that is likely constitutional.
This is a dangerous environment and it is why the Court needs to get the abortion issue out of the courts and into the legislatures. Public influence campaigns are appropriate for legislators. Not for judges. They are supposed to interpret the law. Period.
I plan to have much more to say about this.
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal with something like this being posted on Twitter?
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal with something like this being posted on Twitter?
@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
"Oh, I was worried about the new CEO at the hospital. Sorry if I forgot to turn on the oxygen."
Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal something like this being posted on Twitter?
Not really sure. THere's SO much BS on all social media platforms, so I'll decline to comment - for now. My understanding is that Trump was banned for posting "conspiracy" theories. Will Twitter ban the new WH PresSec?
This person called for violence against a SCOTUS Justice. Is this inexcusable? Twitter seems (for now) to think not.
Is a "Call to arms" a green light for violence, insurrection?
Like I said, let's see how it plays out in a year or so.
-
@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
"Oh, I was worried about the new CEO at the hospital. Sorry if I forgot to turn on the oxygen."
Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal something like this being posted on Twitter?
Not really sure. THere's SO much BS on all social media platforms, so I'll decline to comment - for now. My understanding is that Trump was banned for posting "conspiracy" theories. Will Twitter ban the new WH PresSec?
This person called for violence against a SCOTUS Justice. Is this inexcusable? Twitter seems (for now) to think not.
Is a "Call to arms" a green light for violence, insurrection?
Like I said, let's see how it plays out in a year or so.
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
Not distraction, but confusion -- Twitter has a new owner coming in saying he wants to change the rules for Twitter, it's understandable that it might take a while for all of Twitter to catch up to what the new boss' new rules are.
-
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
Yeah, I noticed that.
Interesting that Cotton is calling for the AG to (cough) enforce the laws, under the threat of impeachment. There were a lot of people unhappy with Holder, but I don't recall such language. Of course, that might just because I'm an old geezer and my memory's failing.
For the sake of discussion, if the GOP takes the House in November, what is the likelihood that Garland will be impeached?
(too lazy to look it up)
Is the standard for conviction the same as impeachment and removal from office as the President?
-
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
One thing I have a minor disagreement with is here:
It is right that the Justice Department is prosecuting the crimes associated with January 6, but, for all the talk of insurrection, the actual charges being levied against offenders from that day include illegal . . . parading. We do not mean to trivialize January 6 — we mean to say that the federal government under the Biden administration has exactly the same duty to protect the Supreme Court that the federal government under the Trump administration had to protect Congress.
The difference is in the law. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of Congress. It happens ALL the time. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of the homes of Congress' members (as reprehensible as it is to "get in their faces." Chuck Schumer claims that it happens at his home 4 times a week.
The statute regarding demonstrating in front of the residence of a member of the judiciary is quite clear. It's illegal. Period.
-
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
@Mik said in Inexcusable:
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
Good piece.
-
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
