The Right to Privacy -- Funny

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree. If all draft decisions or communication between justices are made public they can be harassed and intimidated as we are seeing and the court is compromised. It may not be a crime to leak the information, it is a crime to intimidate judges. Do you support the protests at the justices homes?

Which judges are being harrassed and intimidated?

Compromised? Looks like the decision has already been written.

I don't know, as a woman, I'm more focused on the implications of the decision, rather than on it being leaked.

 

[esmith]

Prove a protest is trying to influence a judge. Protesting the RESULTS of what judges did, or are doing, is a constitutional right. Heck, even the Jan 6 insurrectionists were allowed to protest a valid election result. They just took it too far into criminal activity.

Can you answer this question then:
What is the purpose of these protest if not to influence a decision?
You are mixing apples and oragnes in your comparision to the Jan 6 event. That did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 1507
18 U.S.C. § 1507 says the following: My emphasis
Whoever, 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, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you answer this question then:
What is the purpose of these protest if not to influence a decision?
You are mixing apples and oragnes in your comparision to the Jan 6 event. That did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 1507
18 U.S.C. § 1507 says the following: My emphasis
Whoever, 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, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

That doesn't apply to the January 6th insurrectionists? Really??

 

[esmith]

Which judges are being harrassed and intimidated?.

Harrassed:
to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
I would suggest that the protest outside Justice Alitio's house was "unpleasant"

 

[esmith]

That doesn't apply to the January 6th insurrectionists? Really??

Was it a "court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,

 

[SkepticThinker]

Harrassed:
to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
I would suggest that the protest outside Justice Alitio's house was "unpleasant"

Boo hoo for him. I find his ruling to be "unpleasant," and then some.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you answer this question then:
What is the purpose of these protest if not to influence a decision?
You are mixing apples and oragnes in your comparision to the Jan 6 event. That did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 1507
18 U.S.C. § 1507 says the following: My emphasis
Whoever, 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, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This is what you think the picketers are doing?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Was it a "court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,

Oh, I found a better ones for them ...

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why is it best for one state to allow abortion and pot, but a neighboring state to ban them?

I don't know, that is why each state gets to decide. This is how the country was set up. Why shouldn't each state have the freedom to decide things not spelled out in the constitution?

I watched much of the Kav and Barrett hearings, and was not impressed by the many deflections. My concern is what Collins and Murkowski have stated, that both feel lied to and decided in their discussions with these nominees. We all knew why trump's three nominees were picked, and that fruit is bearing out as evidenced by the leaked opinion.

Yep, politicians lie. How do you know Collins and Murkowski are telling the truth? It is advantages for them to accuse the justices of lying. Democrat presidents put people on the supreme court to do what they want to do as well. Just look at Justice Jackson.

But you are following a religious moral argument. This argument causes many practical problems that anti-abortion people ignore.

I am not. I have non religious reasons for wanting to ban abortions.

Many states are seeing an uptick on abortion services, and they are struggling to manage the clients, denying many of them due to the demand. Plus since these citizens have services available elsewhere why force them to travel? Many poor can;'t afford it, nor can they afford more children. How is that practical or moral? Why don't you advocates offer solutions to these hardships? Could it be you have no solutions and will choose to ignore these problems until it becomes a threat to life and the wellbeing of the babies that were forced to be born? Where is your morality now?

The inconvenience of traveling to get an abortion is not more of an inconvenience to travel to get other medical procedures done. My wife and I travel 500 miles a couple times a re year because of a specialist she needs is not available in our city. The inconvenience in travel doe snot trump the right to life of a potential person. That is a moral stance.

This illustrates why moral absolutes fail. Until you anti-abortion advocates can explain how to take care of the influx of unwanted children you don't have a moral solution, you're just trading one moral dilemma for another. And your chosen moral dilemma is a religious one that you have adopted as an atheist. That's an intellectual dilemma to confound your moral dilemma. Now you just need to figure out what to do with unwanted children, and where the money will come from. Do that and then your morality can be resolved. If you can't, you're stuck with a religious moral position that will cause more harm.

My morality is not based on moral absolutes nor is my prolife stance based on any religious argument. [/quote]I know of no prolife person that wants to save a potential persons life to let them die due to lack of care. Also, I believe a right to life supersedes just about any other moral issue. We can help a mother that does not want her child once the child is born. We cannot help that child once they are dead. I am an atheist but most of the assistance to unwanted children and the mothers is from the religious in the US. Dems seem to not care about spending for things they want such as free healthcare, free minimum salaries, free college tuition free stimulus checks etc. but when it comes to taking care of babies they suddenly are like "we cannot afford it, where is the money coming from"?

And that belief on your part is religious. You just don't seem aware of how you picked this belief up.

Nope.

Let me ask you this, do you think it immoral to abort pregnant feral cats? If not, why not? What makes humans a special species in your view?

I wish they were not aborted. But I believe a human abortion is a bigger moral issue than cat abortion. This is because human morality affects the society I live. We need a moral system as humans to all have a better life on this planet.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Which judges are being harrassed and intimidated?

Alito and Kav. Or do you think 100 people outside your home yelling at you and your family is not harassment or intimidation. There is a reason it is against the law in Virginia.

Compromised? Looks like the decision has already been written.

They are always written and debated. The vote has not happened yet. If so, why protest at their houses?

I don't know, as a woman, I'm more focused on the implications of the decision, rather than on it being leaked.

I never said you should not. I am saying leaking documents from the supreme court is not a good thing for our governmental system. Do you ever contemplate and have discussion about things and are not sure which side you really believe is better? If all the comments during the justices debates and discussions come out why would they have discussions with each other? They need to be able to trust each other and have confidential discussions and thoughts to each other. Do you not think the leak is a problem in any way?

BTW, as a male, I and more focused on the implications of the decision as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Alito and Kav. Or do you think 100 people outside your home yelling at you and your family is not harassment or intimidation. There is a reason it is against the law in Virginia.

They're outside Kavanaugh's house? Sounds like karma to me (ask Christine Blasey-Ford about that one.)

Anyway, it looks like they were cleared out by the police. I will say, I'm not a big fan of protesting outside peoples' homes. Outside the Supreme Court? Sure.

They are always written and debated. The vote has not happened yet. If so, why protest at their houses?

I think they're a tad pissed off that their rights are being taken away from them, maybe?

I never said you should not. I am saying leaking documents from the supreme court is not a good thing for our governmental system.

It's not illegal, as far as I can tell. I don't even think we know who leaked it, at this point.

Do you ever contemplate and have discussion about things and are not sure which side you really believe is better? If all the comments during the justices debates and discussions come out why would they have discussions with each other? They need to be able to trust each other and have confidential discussions and thoughts to each other. Do you not think the leak is a problem in any way?

I don't think any of that has been taken away from them.

BTW, as a male, I and more focused on the implications of the decision as well.

On that we can agree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know, that is why each state gets to decide. This is how the country was set up. Why shouldn't each state have the freedom to decide things not spelled out in the constitution?

So your rights change depending on what state you're in? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Yep, politicians lie. How do you know Collins and Murkowski are telling the truth? It is advantages for them to accuse the justices of lying. Democrat presidents put people on the supreme court to do what they want to do as well. Just look at Justice Jackson.

I am not. I have non religious reasons for wanting to ban abortions.

The inconvenience of traveling to get an abortion is not more of an inconvenience to travel to get other medical procedures done. My wife and I travel 500 miles a couple times a re year because of a specialist she needs is not available in our city. The inconvenience in travel doe snot trump the right to life of a potential person. That is a moral stance.

It most definitely is a huge inconvenience with pregnancy where there is a major time factor involved. Especially given that some states have banned abortion after 6 weeks, when a lot of women don't even know they're pregnant yet.

My morality is not based on moral absolutes nor is my prolife stance based on any religious argument. I know of no prolife person that wants to save a potential persons life to let them die due to lack of care. Also, I believe a right to life supersedes just about any other moral issue. We can help a mother that does not want her child once the child is born. We cannot help that child once they are dead.

I think the woman's right to life supercedes that of a zygote or a blastocyst.

I am an atheist but most of the assistance to unwanted children and the mothers is from the religious in the US. Dems seem to not care about spending for things they want such as free healthcare, free minimum salaries, free college tuition free stimulus checks etc. but when it comes to taking care of babies they suddenly are like "we cannot afford it, where is the money coming from"?

That sounds like Republicans to me. Always cutting away at what they call "entitlement spending" like healthcare, welfare, food stamps, childcare, etc. They seem to care about fetuses a lot more than grown human beings or even children.

Nope.

I wish they were not aborted. But I believe a human abortion is a bigger moral issue than cat abortion. This is because human morality affects the society I live. We need a moral system as humans to all have a better life on this planet.

 

[F1fan]

Can you answer this question then:
What is the purpose of these protest if not to influence a decision?
You are mixing apples and oragnes in your comparision to the Jan 6 event. That did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 1507
18 U.S.C. § 1507 says the following: My emphasis.

Protests are a civil right. It is a means to express displeasure with the actions and policies of those hired to manage our local and national affairs. We the people have the right to protest what the SC aims to do, especially since there is a strong case of deception by certain justices, and a violation of the church and state separation. Plus the vast majority of citizens want Roe to stand.

To influence suggests private and secret deals like paying a justice to vote a certain way. But it can mean subtle measures as well. As it is the far right has influenced the three Trump justices which is why they were picked. So the influence occurred long ago and the president and senate conspired to install these types of judges for a purpose, not because they were qualified to make sound moral and functional decisions for the sake of the people as a whole.

Note that protesters are not interfering or obstructing the SC or justices. They are protesting an elimination of an established right for women.

 

[esmith]

Oh, I found a better ones for them ...

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The argument you are making is not addressing the original discussion. The original discussion was in reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1507 only.

 

[esmith]

Protests are a civil right. It is a means to express displeasure with the actions and policies of those hired to manage our local and national affairs. We the people have the right to protest what the SC aims to do, especially since there is a strong case of deception by certain justices, and a violation of the church and state separation. Plus the vast majority of citizens want Roe to stand.

To influence suggests private and secret deals like paying a justice to vote a certain way. But it can mean subtle measures as well. As it is the far right has influenced the three Trump justices which is why they were picked. So the influence occurred long ago and the president and senate conspired to install these types of judges for a purpose, not because they were qualified to make sound moral and functional decisions for the sake of the people as a whole.

Note that protesters are not interfering or obstructing the SC or justices. They are protesting an elimination of an established right for women.

To bad you have a issue with reading.
Whoever, 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, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the document that was leaked it specifically says that this ruling only pertains to the right of privacy as it relates to abortion, not an overall right to privacy.

That is true, but it is quite easy to say those things, without mentioning that those other rights also stand on the some of the same grounds that underpin Roe. And if those grounds can be ripped out from under Roe, they can be ripped out from under Obergefell -- and we do know that the Republicans have that as a part of their agenda.

Therefore, forgive me if my trust level is a tad on the low side.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you answer this question then:
What is the purpose of these protest if not to influence a decision?
You are mixing apples and oragnes in your comparision to the Jan 6 event. That did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 1507
18 U.S.C. § 1507 says the following: My emphasis
Whoever, 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, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The right to protest in public supersedes any
prohibition against influencing judges. It can be
subject to reasonable regulation though.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is true, but it is quite easy to say those things, without mentioning that those other rights also stand on the some of the same grounds that underpin Roe. And if those grounds can be ripped out from under Roe, they can be ripped out from under Obergefell -- and we do know that the Republicans have that as a part of their agenda.

They were not ripped out. They were removed where there was never a right in the first place. What are these same grounds? Reading the Obergefell decision it was not based on the right to privacy.

Therefore, forgive me if my trust level is a tad on the low side.

I have long since stopped trusting anyone in government. The problem with our country is that too many dems still trust their leaders.

 

[Ponder This]

No, I am suggesting that part of the justification for scrapping Roe is that the Constitution does not guarantee any right to privacy.

Okay. I guess I don't understand.

 

[esmith]

The right to protest in public supersedes any
prohibition against influencing judges. It can be
subject to reasonable regulation though.

That is until the protest infringes on the rights of the person or persons being protested.
Even though you disagree with a law you should suffer the consequences of violating such law.
If you think a law is unjust then seek redress.