Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Debate Swirls After Brett Kavanaugh Faces Protests At His House" video.

yea, they respected the rules of how to protest except for one, and thats a federal statute prohibiting any protest or organization or even so much as a parade in front of a judges house. they are breaking federal law.
3
@InfectedByEli yea, weird how all those 2A defenders kept screaming at you to not take their rights away and you pushed and pushed anyway, now they push back and its your turn to cry. dont expect a helping hand from the people you fought against in the past.
2
@juresichj can you give examples of how lobbyists and think tanks and political parties influence judges?
1
@tylerphuoc2653 oh i see, so they give Amicus Curiae Briefs to help guide judges, that is much different than influencing judges with a riot in front of their house. usually an Amicus Curiae Brief is filled with legal precedent and various legal facts, instead of nonsensical giberish that is spewed out by protesters. and as you said yourself, it helps guide a judge, not influence them, there is a difference, an amicus brief has factual information in it and doesnt have a veiled threat of do this or else in it.
1
@13bigerdave how are you not safe in your home? do you mean it is legal now to break into your home and murder you and take all your stuff? or are there laws still banning that kind of activity? i mean if someone breaks into your home and does you harm, will they be prosecuted if caught? as for your rights being taken away? please clarify what rights other people have that you dont have that you used to have but have been taken away
1
@markfll who cares what the right is going after, perhaps the right should go after a lot of things considering the right has been a whipping boy for the left for decades now. if you dont want your rights taken away, then maybe you should start by not trying to take away other peoples rights in the first place. now you have to deal with the backlash.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 no, im not one of those people, and what am i prepping for? well according to lunatics like you, climate change is going to cause all the oceans to rise and wipe out humanity, so thats what im prepping for.
1
actually yes, it is illegal, there is a federal law banning protests of any kind at judges homes.
1
N A protests are illegal, under 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (subsection numbers added), 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.
1
@bretfrench1228 maybe you should put the pipe down, thats how you end up in jail for breaking laws you dont understand.
1
N A tell you what, you go and protest in front of a judges house, and when you get arrested and charged with violating THAT federal statute, then you can argue about your first amendment right with another judge. as Biden himself said, NO right is absolute. you cant bring a gun into school even though your 2nd amendment says you can keep and bear arms. you cant threaten to kill someone, even though your first amendment say you can say anything you want. there are restrictions to every right.
1
N A i dont care what they did, they are still breaking the law. would you support protests in front of SCOTUS judges homes if it leaked out that the supreme court was going to rule in favor of gay marriage? or would you consider that those protests are only there to influence the judges to vote a different way and then cite how they are breaking a law? it is just as illegal to intimidate or harass someone as it is to threaten them.
1
N A how they breaking the law? i gave you the law, i wrote out what it says, you just want to make excuses to allow for bad behaviour. they are breaking the law for protesting at a judges house, you can call it whatever you want, doesnt matter, and you can claim they are not threatening or harrasing, doesnt matter. they are gathering at a judges house to influence a judge, and its illegal.
1
@singerrb4984 no, i am referring to the protests at SCOTUS homes that are currently happening.
1
@randelford5817 demonstrating displeasure as constituents IS a form of influence, hoping that the demonstrations bring about a change. dont try to backpedal claiming that protests are not influential when the whole reason for protesting is to influence change. practically every protest organizer in history has made the assertion that their protests can bring about change, that is the point of a protest.
1
@randelford5817 no one is smearing any lines between beliefs, SCOTUS is doing their job in confirming that the federal government does not have any power delegated to it under the constitution when it concerns this matter, and since the federal government is not granted this power by the constitution, then the 10th amendment clearly puts this power in the hands of each individual state. but perhaps you being a more knowledgeable authority on the constitution can point out to SCOTUS which article or amendment gives the federal government any power over medical procedures, or a specific medical procedure such as abortion. bet you cant. as for precedent, there are plenty of precedents that have been overturned in the past, the most famous one was Brown v Board of Ed that ended segregation in schools where SCOTUS overturned their own 100 year precedent of confirming that segregation in schools was constitutional. now as for your allegation of SCOTUS nominees lying under oath during their hearings, i challenge you to point out which nominee lied during their confirmation hearing and quote the statement that they made that is a lie. bet you cant do that either.
1
@randelford5817 you are right, you dont know the constitution, so you shouldnt make any comments of a topic you know nothing about. as for knowing right wing nutjobs, anything that doensnt agree with you left with cultists 100% you consider a right wing nutjob. as for your commend on Mitch, i dont see it and i didnt see it, so maybe Youtube didnt post it, but then again, what does Mitch have to do with SCOTUS rulings? nice try at whataboutism. now to get into more detail as to Gorsuch, Kavenaugh and Barrett as to waht they said during their confirmation hearings, not a single one of them said that they would not overturn RvW, none of them even said it was settled law, all of them said that it was a precedent and thats about it. but i challenge you to give the exact quote from any one of them that was a lie and explain how it was a lie. bet you cant do that, because your memory, just like your moral standards, are flawed to the point of non-existence.
1
@FernandoTorrera ok you didnt have an abortion, you had a miscairage. if the child died in your womb and was no longer viable and was dead then removing it is not an abortion. an abortion is about terminating a fetus life.
1
@DemonDante1000 simple solution, if women dont want to be mothers, then they should refrain from activities that would put them in that position.
1
@andu1854 well, if you want to claim that men are just as or even more responsible, then men should have a decision in abortion rights or even MORE of a decision in it. and it looks like men are getting that decision.
1
@hundejahre yes, and now men are deciding it again. RvW was meant to be safe and legal and rare, but then leftists and progressives pushed it all the way up to actual infanticide and murder where they give irth and make the baby comfortable and then the mother and doctor step aside and decide if the live baby should be terminated. you were given a right and you abused it, so that right should be taken away.
1
@hundejahre wrong about the numbers? i dont remember posting up any numbers, you must be seeing things, how does that feel?
1
@Ironraven001 protests are illegal, under 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (subsection numbers added), 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.
1
@tad001 well, we all know that political parties dont give a hoot about about the constitution. the constitution clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and yet there are plenty of laws banning various guns and where you can even take a gun. i mean there are laws banning people from bringing guns to a school, im sure you will agree that is a reasonable regulation right? i'll take a page from the democrats playbook when they say no right is absolute and there are restrictions to every right. protests are illegal, under 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (subsection numbers added), 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.
1
@carrieullrich5059 well, considering that the constitution says nothing about requiring a permission slip as to keeping and bearing arms, would you be willing to sign a petition to have all gun control laws overturned? will you go and protest at politicians homes that have enacted gun control?
1
@tad001 well, if you agree with some laws that restrict certain practices that are clearly protected by the constitution, then you cant start crying if there are laws that restrict the practices you enjoy. you cant have your cake and eat it to. you are either for or against regulations.
1
@tad001 you can talk all you want about peaceful assembly or choose any one of a million other labels just to skirt around a law, but it almost never works in a court of law. i have yet to see a thief get off by stating that he was simply conducting a wealth and asset management tast and not really stealing.
1
@tad001 what are you yammering on about? now you bring Trump into this? here is a simple breakdown. according to federal law, it is illegal to protest or peacefully assemble or EVEN have a parade in front of a judges house. i dont care how you want to label it and if you want to point to some other group and what they are doing or whatever you want to do. as far as protesters that stormed the capitol building, they broke the law, they were investigated and arrested, and many of them have pled guilty to their charges. JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED. now we have protests in front of judges homes, clearly in violation of a federal law. are you appalled by those protests and are you demanding equal justice or are you trying to argue semantics and what Trump did with prostitutes on a bed?
1
@michaeldarnell6074 yes it can be legally argued that a justice of the SCOTUS is not discharging his duty in his house, but then again the law doesnt say you cant protest during a time when the justice is discharging his duties in his house now does it, it simply states no protest at a judges house.
1
@sebastianlavallee706 no actually, if you read the law, it is illegal to protest at a judges house, PERIOD. bye felicia.
1
@sebastianlavallee706 i read it, did you? 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, perhaps you missed the part with RESIDENCE.
1
@sebastianlavallee706 i already did read it, but perhaps you can point out to me where it says "with such intent" in the following "or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence," and if you want to go deeper into it, it can be easily said that these protests are there to influence these judges in their decision, and therefore interfere in the discharge of their duties.
1
@Raizhen010 oh wow, you want to argue about whether a law is constitutional or not? can you cite where in the constitution a right to an abortion OR a right to ANY medical procedure is a guaranteed right? if you think that law is not constitutional then RvW is definitely NOT constitutional. but yes, that law applies to even peaceful protests as most of the forms of protests names in the law are generally peaceful, suck as picketing or use of a sound truck or even a parade. the mistake you make is thinking that justice is supposed to be democratic, its not, justice is supposed to be based on logic and reason supported by facts, not by mob rule. if you want justice to be democratic you can go ask rapists if rape crimes should be prosecuted, i guarantee that all of them will say that rape should be legal, there is your democratic justice winds up. but hey, im glad you support protests in front of judges homes, im sure you will feverishly support the right to protest when right wing religious zealots go and protest in front of liberal judges homes that are in support of RvW waving banners that say "remember what happened to abortion clinics in the 80's?". the same religious zealots that thought they were fighting gods war when they were blowing up abortion clinics and assassinating abortion doctors. you are signaling to those people that you are OK with ending the legitimacy of an impartial and uninfluenced court system by means of mob rule and intimidation and influence. dont cry when this escalates.
1