SmarterthanYou
rebel
you've never read 'muh constitution', have you? you probably don't even know it's purpose and if you think hypocrite is an insult, wait til I get going
Roe V Wade has been overturned.
- Thread starter ExpressLane
- Start date
you've never read 'muh constitution', have you? you probably don't even know it's purpose and if you think hypocrite is an insult, wait til I get going
ExpressLane
Verified User
Do you think men should have to financially support the children they help create?
No, it’s not Miss Marple.
There is a federal law, passed by Congress, that prohibits protesting at the homes of S.C. Justices.
We will impeach Garland after Nov.
The only election fraud discovered in 2022 was by Republicans. Can you believe the irony?
Duh. Both are responsible for supporting children they helped create.
And you have your tiny dick up your own ass.
ExpressLane
Verified User
You can't scream fire in a crowded theater. There are limitations to free speech. Yes protest but not protesting at a judge's home.
This is news? I already know you can't have a civil argument with people whose opinions differ from yours.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Actually, she's on the phone right now asking for a sequel. I told her I'm chatting with you. She told me is was nice to give the incel the time of day.
More points for me for tonight - I'll let you know how it goes, loser
Whether protests are illegal is up to the courts. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.
Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. Holmes' famous quote comes in the context of a series of early 1919 Supreme Court decisions in which he endorsed government censorship of wartime dissent — dissent that is now clearly protected by subsequent First Amendment authority. Holmes uses deliberately vague language susceptible to the interpretation that the government has the power to prohibit speech that might lead people to demonstrate against, vote against, and petition their government to alter conscription. This is a calculated blurring of the line between what the government wants to avoid (a drop in support for the war and the draft) and what it should have the power to prevent (active defiance of the law, on the one hand, versus criticism of the law, on the other).
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
"Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.
But claiming this section prohibits all protests in a justice’s neighborhood or that it bans people from marching past a justice’s home would be too broad of an interpretation, Eidelman said.
"That reading would unconstitutionally limit people’s ability to protest in traditional public forums, including streets and sidewalks, and it would restrict our ability to communicate our messages of dissent, disgust, and disappointment to the public," she said.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/13/it-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-law-sugges/
Good luck with your possible impeachment!
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
So you're resorting to vulgarity as a method of
covering your eyes and 
ears from the truth, eh?ExpressLane
Verified User
So why should a man be responsible for the child if it's only the woman's choice if the baby even exists?
So you're resorting to vulgarity as a method of
Nope, I'm shutting down an stinky troll.
Shit. You're an idiot. I'm going to have to explain the trash talk.
I'm talking about YOU! You're the troll.
You're welcome.
troll.
you already know that, eh?
Yes. After I responded to Primavera's post you jumped in with this.
"and i'm sure you would feel the very same way if a liberal justice swore the same thing about the 2nd Amendment, then turned around and overturned individual rights, right? hypocrite?"
Are you being disingenuous? It takes two people not using birth control to create a baby. Did the man not know that having unprotected sex could make that possible?
ExpressLane
Verified User
Garland is definitely not doing his job to enforce the law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you should know enough about me on here to know that hypocrite isn't even an insult. I've said WAY worse things to people. so maybe this is just you being a bit petty because I accurately pointed out your hypocrisy