Brett Kavanaugh's Right to Dine Shall Not Be Infringed (Esquire)

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Jack Holmes
@jackholmes0
·
Follow
If you don't like the policy made by our nine-person SuperCongress, you can't vote them out and you can't protest them—not on the Supreme Court steps, and not in neutral public spaces. They have a right to privacy!

esquire.com
Brett Kavanaugh's Right to Dine Shall Not Be Infringed
Never mind that it wasn't, and that Americans have no recourse to hold members of their unelected SuperCongress accountable.
8:04 AM · Jul 8, 2022

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40556040/brett-kavanaugh-protesters-dinner-steakhouse-supreme-court/

No paywall
https://archive.ph/eAYTa

Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to become a member of our nine-person SuperCongress by a president who took office despite earning the votes of millions fewer Americans than his opponent did. That president never enjoyed the support of a majority of citizens and got spanked in the popular vote by an even larger margin—7 million—in the next election. He then tried to overthrow the government to stay in power. Only one of the five other right-wing justices was nominated by a president who took office having secured the support of a majority of actual Americans.

Brett Kavanaugh was then confirmed by 50 senators who represented just 44 percent of the American population. The 48 senators who voted "nay" represented tens of millions more citizens. Kavanaugh secured the crucial 50th vote of Senator Susan Collins based on her publicly stated belief that he considered Roe v. Wade to be "settled legal precedent." In the public hearings into the question of his confirmation, where he testified under oath, Kavanaugh said this:

Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors.

And then, a couple of weeks ago, Kavanaugh voted with the five other Republicans on the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

If you have a problem with any of this—unelected judges selected by presidents who got fewer votes and confirmed by senators who represent a minority of citizens making policy without regard for legal precedent or their own previous statements under oath—you don't seem to have much recourse.

You can't vote the superlegislators out. It is unreasonable to expect any will be impeached thanks to the entrenched advantages that allow Republicans outsize control of the Senate. Even the House of Representatives is dangerously skewed, thanks to gerrymandered redistricting maps and the hyperpolarization they help to generate. The reason Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and others worked so hard to seize control of the judiciary was precisely because so many other institutions have ceased to function properly. Even if you do succeed in electing representatives to make policy through the legislature—after this same Court savaged the Voting Rights Act and unleashed an avalanche of money in our elections—the courts can throw out whatever they choose.

*snip*

[Deuxcents]

1. What about our right to privacy?

[Nevilledog]

2. What right to privacy?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Cowardly SCOTUS asked governors to quell non-violent protests

If it is okay to picket the home of doctors proving abortions and at abortion clinics, it is okay to protest non-violently in front of the homes of these partisan hacks

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/supreme-court-objects-peaceful-protests-slashing-abortion-rights-rcna36691

Protesters have been gathering outside the homes of all six conservative Supreme Court justices in recent weeks. Now, in a remarkable act of cowardice, the court is asking officials to quell the demonstrations, claiming they are violating state and county protesting laws. The requests are the latest attempts to coddle a deeply unpopular court and insulate its conservative members from outrage over their anti-democratic decisions.

Supreme Court marshal Gail Curley last week sent letters to Maryland and Virginia’s governors, both Republicans, and to the Democratic county leaders in Maryland’s Montgomery County and Virginia’s Fairfax County, asking them to put an end to the demonstrations, NBC News reported. Some conservative politicians have equated the protests to the deadly Capitol insurrection. In May, lawmakers responded by passing a bill giving judges’ families increased security.

“For weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed Justices’ homes in Maryland,” Curley wrote in her letter to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. She advised him to put the protest down by enforcing a state law banning people from disrupting someone else’s “tranquility,” and she described loud protests as “exactly the kind of conduct that Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit.” She sent a similar letter to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

This wave of protests first erupted in May, when someone leaked a draft of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning federal abortion rights. Hogan and Youngkin, who both oppose abortion, have pushed federal officials to interpret obscure protest laws as bans on demonstrations outside justices’ homes. But Hogan’s communications director acknowledged in a tweet Saturday that both federal and local officials have said they don’t have grounds to apply the law to non-violent protests.

These assholes are all partisan hacks and it is appropriate to protest these partisan hacks

[underpants]

8. nine-person SuperCongress

Good one

[MyOwnPeace]

4. I say "Let Senator Susan Collins stand guard"

while the 'honorable' Justice Boof enjoys a draft or two with his meal. She'd be the perfect 'guard' - she'll tell all protesters that she is 'concerned' about their issues, but that she's convinced that 'Boof' has learned his lesson now and will 'probably' vote the 'right' way next time in a couple of years.
In the meantime, the protesting crowd dissipated because they fell asleep listening to the "Honorable" Senator - and 'Boof' slithered out the back door.

[struggle4progress]

5. "Look! It's Justice Beerbong Weenie-wagger!"

[Hekate]

6. KnR

[Brainfodder]

7. Dream on beerbro, reap....

No tears for that asshole.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. For this thread

Link to tweet

[2naSalit]

12. +1

As with the other five.

[H2O Man]

10. Baloney.

Amendment 1.

[dchill]

11. In the immortal words of Barry Manilow, Brett...

"You get what you get when you go for it..." And you went for it!

27/7 demonstrators is WAY better than being shot. You know, like George Tiller.