Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Debate Swirls After Brett Kavanaugh Faces Protests At His House" video.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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