It's not that they don't want to talk politics, they don't want to talk to you.
Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
I don't buy that, one can rage anywhere and any time. Making a sign and showing up on a day they are hearing an abortion case is common on both sides and isn't just rage. They want to be heard.
Intent to be heard is intent to be heard. Intent to influence is something entirely different. What they have in common is communication, as in free speech. Unless I have placed in the public domain my intent to influence in that place in that time you have to read my mind to prove some specific intent.
As an aside, one of the most prevalent and insidiously profound psychological problems people have is the need to be heard. More specifically, the need to have some specific communication acknowledged by someone else. One of the kindest things you can do is to sincerely and intently acknowledge someone’s communication. You can witness great relief in their countenance.
If one does not think being heard can result in change, why be heard? We might hate the weather, has anyone here seen people out protesting extreme cold or extreme heat? In droughts they often protest water restrictions, I do not recall seeing people chanting "what do we want? The drought to end! When do we want it? Now!".
People protest because they want to be heard and they believe being heard will result in the change they want. Otherwise, join me in protest on the first 100 degree day this summer.
St Louis sucks in the summer, maybe I have found a protest he will join.
I understand what you’re saying but you’re not proving intent to influence. As I said the need to be heard can be a psychological problem in its own right, independent of any intent to effect change as a consequence of having been heard.
I’m willing to bet a large majority of any protesters, if asked, would respond they don’t believe their protest will have any effect. So why do they protest? What is their intent? To protest for protest’s sake? Fill in the blank, Marvin. Every answer prevents proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I hope you slept it off.
Hey, seriously, drinking like that will not only hurt your liver, but can cause kidney damage and, specifically in your case, cause mental issues and personality disorders.
You should seek professional help while you're still young enough to reverse some of the damage your drinking is causing.
I think they believe it will have an impact. People protesting at BLM rallies believed showing up and being heard would have an impact. People showing up at union picket rallies believe it will have an impact. People showing up at women's day marches believe it will have an impact. People boycotting businesses believe it will have an impact. People protesting the war in Vietnam believed it would have an impact. The guy laying down in front of the tank at Tiananmen square believed it would have an impact. People in my neighborhood signing petitions to not be annexed believed it would have an impact. People voting for Trump, or Bernie, or Biden, or Green, or Libertarian, believe it will have an impact. People donating to ActBlue or WinRed believe it will have an impact.
Part of living in a Republic is the idea that we CAN and DO influence the direction of our government.
Below is a story of an Archbishop urging people to pray for Roe to be overturned. Is that illegal? It is trying to use God to influence the vote of justices?
I am for free speech, if people want to stand out in front of the court holding signs and chanting, I want and encourage that. I want people to feel heard. But people want to be heard BECAUSE they believe that will make a difference. Does anyone seriously think neither side of the abortion debate has been heard since 1973?
I am just saying that this law must be disregarded because I don't want people arrested for holding signs outside the Supreme Court. It is a law written very poorly. I get not threatening justices. I get not intimidating them away from their building, or IN their building. But I think saying the people cannot be heard is a very bad idea with very little parallel. It isn't sensible that 300 million Americans can file friend of the court briefs. So they way those normal Americans have a chance to influence anything is to stand out there.
If it is only about being heard, you think those 9 justices have never heard either side?
But the way the law is written, if someone led a prayer that the court find the wisdom to overturn Roe (or keep Roe), that would be illegal and I hope we all agree that is just plain wrong.
I think you make a fair and strong point. That law should be carefully and precisely worded so the right to protest is not hindered. I would go one step further. I think it’s patently absurd to legislate any intent to influence. That seems unconstitutional. It surely seems antipathetical to a free country with individual free will.
I was making a different point. As goat said, I think it’s extremely difficult to actually prove intent to influence. Despite all of your examples. If for no other reason, how do you prove intent to influence a judge’s decision if he in the end voted against your beliefs? it’s a yes or no decision. You either totally influenced it or you influenced it not at all. If you influenced it not at all, could you have really had the intent? Can you be so incompetent or so powerless as to fail to influence it whatsoever? That doesn’t sound like intent to me.
If Joe is standing to your left and you fire the gun to the right, can you have had the intent to shoot Joe?
I think I said legally I agree with him, it would be tough to prove intent. I just said logically we know the intent. What one can logically infer may not be a valid reason for a conviction.
But I don't care what the intent is, it should be legal to protest at the capitol (I have repeatedly defended Jan 6 protestors' rights to protest up until they tried to break into the Capitol), at the White House, at a Court. If people think a judge it too lenient, they should be allowed to protest that. If they think too strict, they should be allowed to protest that. I think right now a lot of us side on the too lenient belief. I don't see anything wrong with protestors pointing that out.
So I am not disagreeing with you on the intent point. I am just arguing that the law is way too broad and needs changed to include intimidation but exclude normal protests.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Just to be extra clear, it is not illegal to influence a judge. There are specific acts which, when done with the intent to influence, are illegal. The intent to influence is an element of the crime, but is not the illegal act itself.
Goat for much of the last two days here in this thread
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Liberal, pro-choice con law prof says there is “nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written” in Dobbs draft:
www.wsj.com
The End of Roe v. Wade
For a constitutional scholar and pro-choice Democrat, there are reasons to endorse the leaked draft opinion overturning the 1973 abortion decision—and to see it as vindication for a range of liberal priorities.
www.wsj.com
Color me stunned that no one wants to talk to you about politics. At a party no less….
I'll never understand why originalism is so controversial
The Founders put into the Constitution instructions - and authorizations - to change it.
If the public wants something different, they can vote for people who want the same thing.
Such a simple concept, yet everyone - not just loony libs - want to read into the Constitution things that aren't there.
I have a feeling Madison and others would be surprised there aren't more amendments to the Constitution to better reflect a changed society.
Lol.... there's always one at every party. Definitely you are the crazy person that everyone wants to avoid....regardless of their political tilt.
Bet your parties are a lot of fun...... Definitely you are the person who repeats whatever Jon Stewart said on his most recent monologue.
No.... but I'm not stupid enough to talk about politics at corporate parties. And definitely not "cornering" people that disagree with me to rant about it.
I wonder how long it takes for his wife to live his antics down when she gets back into the office?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Another person who doesn’t understand what originalism is about or why it is used
Nobody ranted...Trump was just elected so this person was one of those vagina wearing protesters in dc, masters in education, while husband worked his ass off while she treated him like shit bitches. She deserved me bud and got me. No shame from this pony. Great conversation too. All good
You just made me realize how many people on this board are power couples...NOT. Now I really know what I'm dealing with.
Last edited:
You haven’t posted anything positive that the Biden administration has done ! Why is that?
Hahaha. I value my Nads bulky. That would have made news
Decent post, and I agree. You’d do well to post about things like this rather than lies and baseless conspiracy theories perpetuated by Trump and Trumpsters.
What? Your posts are as difficult to read and understand as ivegotwinners’ posts are.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Yea. Reading into the constitution things that aren't there is just a liberal thing. Lmao. Yea right
The over under on the number of amendments to the constitution in the next two centuries is -0.5.
"baseless conspiracy theories"? You mean like Russian Collusion?
Don't ever talk to me about conspiracy theories when you were duped into believing that hoax.
Hey dumbass, what part about this sentence don't you understand?
"Such a simple concept, yet everyone - not just loony libs - want to read into the Constitution things that aren't there."
