204
Conservative SCOTUS Justices: Why isn't DOJ treating Dobbs protesters like January 6 attackers?
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
204 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4220 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So what I'm hearing is, we should treat SCOTUS the same way Trump supporters treated Congress on 1/6?
Is that really the argument they want to make?
Lol.. I do like your point. However, it seems like what they are saying is that you have to prove they intended harm on those conducting official proceedings. Attacking a police officer is good evidence, but it doesn't necessarily show an intent to harm those conducting the proceeding.
They were beating officers and breaking doors and windows so they could get into the chambers and shake the hands of their elected representatives!
They brought pipe bombs, hand cuffs and zip ties as tokens of affection for their elected leaders!
So you're telling me the BLM protestors breaking windows, trying to set fires and throwing rocks at police wanted to set the whole city on fire and kill all the police? And so when it came to their charges, they just got let go? Like c'mon... Are you even going to talk about this from a legitimate perspective, cause otherwise you're just helping the Jan 6 attackers by being ficticios.
This guy is going full reddit here. Comparing BLM to the insurrection, acting like they're the same, and downplaying the insurrection.
I notice that the centrists who call everyone who doesn't worship Biden's support for genocide a Trump supporter are silent here.
This is what "both sides"ing actually looks like. This is what Trump support actually looks like. Centrists don't care in this case because they only oppose those to their left.
You are so far from reality... If you call yourself a Democrat and Democrats are supposed to be educated, then Trump will certainly win and it will be your fault and people that circle jerk the same kind of reactionary non-educated and emotionally challenged ideas you spread. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in the end the Russian trolls aren't laughing right now at how easy it is to manipulate some American democrats by just targeting their emotions and feelings when they won't do any basic research beyond on how they feel.
No where did I try to equate the two. Laws are indifferent to your feelings of when violence and crime are justified. My point was that some BLM protesters doings something doesn't mean that they are guilty of it. In fact, my argument was in support of peaceful protesters. The only way you could be offended is if you are in fact a violent protester who is upset that violence isn't allowed when it makes you feel good.
“The only way you could be offended..” lmfao. Get off your high horse bud. And no your arguments are not about peaceful protest but you already know this.
You've got an agenda that has nothing to do with being honest and transparent. Instead resort to ad hominem attacks and hyperbole.
You know nothing of me or my agenda from my above comment. Obvious troll.
Thanks for proving my point. Move along now... done with you and your fake values.
Uh huh.
So I guess breaking into Congress when it was closed to the public because of COVID, on the day Congress was meeting to certify the winner of an election Trump and his supporters refused to acknowledge he lost, bringing zip tie handcuffs, building a fucking gallows out front, chanting "Hang Mike Pence!", having guns on the Capitol grounds and stashed around DC, and literally beating the officers who were there to protect Congress, doesn't mean Trump supporters were there with "intention to harm?"
Yep, sounds exactly the same as being angry about America's still-extant racism which allows Black men to be murdered by cops to me!
According to your logic, during a BLM protest where people start rioting and breaking into shops that means all the protesters in the area had an intention of committing the same crimes. Do you really want cops charging everyone in a public area with the same crime? Do you want them locking up journalists and people there peacefully cause some people in their vicinity had some lighters, cloth and alcohol bottles? The whole point of trial is to prove someones guilt and for that you need evidence of what crime they were planning to commit.
Quick question there, sparky:
How many people charged for their actions on Jan 6 never entered the Capitol?
Because the only way the logic you're defending holds up, is if that was the case.
Sparky? Really bro?
Did you even read the story that I was responding to, you know the specific crime that the Supreme Court was looking at. They weren't looking to see if trespassing was illegal, nor did I ever say they shouldn't be charged with trespassing nor of entering a government building without permission. I was talking about whether the protesters should all be treated like they were their to kill representatives certifying the votes even without evidence that was all their intentions. Sure, some may have been there for that purpose, but does that meant that everyone that entered into the capitol building was there for that exact same reason?
If so, my point was does that mean that everyone at a BLM protests... even those that were being peaceful, are in an area when someone sets a fire... should be charged with arson? Like, do we want judges saying.. oh, they were in the area or in the building when this happened and cause a few were there for a different purpose, it means they were all there for the same purpose. Or do we want courts to evaluate the evidence against each defendant and try to treat people fairly as much as possible?
The only point you seem to make is plugging your ears and talking over and around the actually contextual replies that repeatedly negate your word salad.
Knock it off.
Bro.
Many times it was found that those people breaking shop windows during BLM protests were actually right-wing agitators.
They might have been. The whole point was the article which discusses whether to charge them with a specific crime that requires a specific intent, and I said you need evidence against each defendant for that... and the fringe antifa left came out and said, no... charge them all cause everyone that entered the Capitol building was there to hang pence. Several of them claimed several officers died, and then were to ashamed to admit that all public reports including Wikipedia said no officers died.
IMO many of these commenters are just as bad as the right-wingers who don't deal in facts. They are just as gullible to misinformation and don't care about real facts or evidence.