Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Pro-abortion activists rally at SCOTUS justices' homes, Catholic Churches" video.

@lordbread2083 I think you're very confused about what most Americans want. In any case, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of mob rule . If you want to make abortion a Constitutional right, then propose and ratify an amendment....that's how it works.
8
@CALI-CALI-CALI Can someone please tell me what happened on January 6? People keep talking about this date but I can't find anything of interest about it.
6
@pefo1674 Protesting at the publicly owned buildings is fine, we conservatives have absolutely no issues with that. Attempting to use physical threats at a justice's private home isn't protesting, that's called intimidation, and it's illegal.
5
@vonslagle It will be overturned, the Justices now have no choice.
3
@ricktackett6516 Many, but not all, local ordinances which require a permit to exercise free speech, are unconstitutional.
2
@gghhhgghhh3037 Universal truths and morals are not the same as religious beliefs or values, however, they could certainly overlap. The US was founded loosely on Christian values, but our system of government is not rooted in religion...it is a secular nation.
1
@CALI-CALI-CALI Please, I want the leftists to riot.
1
@ricktackett6516 Yes, I know, but many ordinances which require permits for protesting are unconstitutional, which means they cannot be lawfully enforced and are often repealed when challenged. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply providing additional Information on the subject which you may not be aware of. See below: "In some cases, government can require a permit as a condition of protest on public property. For example, government often can require a permit for parades in the streets, given the impact on vehicle traffic. Likewise, government often can require a permit for large protests in public parks and plazas, in order to ensure fairness among the various groups seeking to use the site. On the other hand, the First Amendment generally bars government from requiring a permit when one person or a small group protest in a park, or when a group of any size protest on a public sidewalk in a manner that does not burden pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Such non-permitted protests might involve speeches, press conferences, signs, marches, chants, leaflets, expressive clothing, and efforts to speak with passersby. The absence of a permit for such protests simply does not burden any legitimate government interests. Thus, the Chicago Park District does not require a permit for gatherings in parks of fewer than 50 people. Likewise, the Chicago ordinance regulating public assembly does not require a permit for gatherings and marches on sidewalks that do not obstruct the normal flow of pedestrian traffic. Moreover, if protesters gather in response to breaking news, the First Amendment requires an exception from the ordinary deadlines in the government’s permit process. Thus, in the Chicago ordinance requiring permit applications 15 days before a parade, and notice to the City five days before a sidewalk demonstration that would impede pedestrian traffic, there is an exemption for spontaneous responses to current events."
1
@ricktackett6516 Yes, of course private property is not subject to first amendment protections.
1
@ricktackett6516 Yes, I already knew that.
1
If the leftists want to make abortion a Constitutional right, all they have to do is propose an amendment and get it ratified. Threatening the Justices will only galvanize them...they now have to show that leftist threats don't work.
1