What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in Public Health, TB.

First Amendment right to free expression versus federal statute against hurting a justice's feelings. 

Violence and intimidation are crossing the line. A protest expressing disapproval with a ruling seems like protected speech. 

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

First Amendment right to free expression versus federal statute against hurting a justice's feelings. 

Violence and intimidation are crossing the line. A protest expressing disapproval with a ruling seems like protected speech. 

 

Republicans sponsored a bipartisan bill to offer them more protection.  I would think if it was illegal then they would have demanded they be arrested wouldn't you think?

Still I think protesting at the Supreme Court building is more appropriate that going to their homes.  People should be able to live privately lives in peace and it's a waste of resources.

 

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
39 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Republicans sponsored a bipartisan bill to offer them more protection.  I would think if it was illegal then they would have demanded they be arrested wouldn't you think?

Still I think protesting at the Supreme Court building is more appropriate that going to their homes.  People should be able to live privately lives in peace and it's a waste of resources.

 

 

Wouldn't I think???  I wouldn't have posted the opinion without checking.  I simply clicked on the link in the second paragraph.  I guess I'll have to save you all that trouble and paste what the statute says.  I can't read it for you,  however.

"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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
2 hours ago, nursej22 said:

First Amendment right to free expression versus federal statute against hurting a justice's feelings. 

Violence and intimidation are crossing the line. A protest expressing disapproval with a ruling seems like protected speech. 

 

Its a federal law.  But it's OK for the US govt to have a dept that exists to investigate terrorists to be keeping an eye on parents protesting at schools.

The hypocrisy is astounding, as is your feeble understanding of the first amendment. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
11 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Its a federal law.  But it's OK for the US govt to have a dept that exists to investigate terrorists to be keeping an eye on parents protesting at schools.

The hypocrisy is astounding, as is your feeble understanding of the first amendment. 

I don't disagree that people who protest outside the private residence of a SC judge are simply horrible people, but generally federal law enforcement agencies refrain from enforcing laws that appear fairly clearly unconstitutional.  

Maybe you can enlighten us on the first amendment.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×

"Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes appear to be illegal"

.....

"Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University’s law school, said that the current protests at justices’ homes qualify under the statute and that the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
22 hours ago, Beerman said:

Wouldn't I think???  I wouldn't have posted the opinion without checking.  I simply clicked on the link in the second paragraph.  I guess I'll have to save you all that trouble and paste what the statute says.  I can't read it for you,  however.

"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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

I wonder why the Republican lawmakers that proposed the protection didn't insist they were breaking the law and have them arrested?  How is it that the general public knows they were breaking the law and they aren't acting on it?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.

Calling people 'feeble' and making snide remarks doesn't prove any points on the subjects being discussed, and having a different opinion doesn't make one righteously superior. It's this kind of divisiveness that drives people apart even further.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.

I stand corrected.  There is a Republican move to have protestors arrested.  I figured there would be, but there is resistance among republicans.  I guess it could be said that Senator Lummis has a feeble understanding of the First Amendment.

Quote

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wants the abortion-rights protesters demonstrating in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices to be swiftly arrested and prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Some of his Republican colleagues, however, say that would go too far and that it could violate First Amendment protections.

“I think if they’re being peaceful and are staying off their property and are not disrupting neighborhoods or causing or inciting fear, it’s probably a legitimate expression of free speech,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said Wednesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-senators-push-arrest-abortion-protesters-meets-gop-resistan-rcna28435?fbclid=IwAR13Acl69nj1QWZOm8dxkCoHtnHq2wTNBPBsVjzgEJ6jeIFboLa50CbIb0g

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
On 5/9/2022 at 12:20 PM, nursej22 said:

Roe v. Wade restricted abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy. This hardly accepting abortions at 34 weeks.

Are there people in favor of letting pregnant people with eclampsia just die at 34 weeks, when the only treatment is delivery? What about the cases of fetal demise that does not spontaneously abort?  

Yikes! I had a c section at 35 weeks because I had placenta abruption and was hemorrhaging. Did I have an abortion? 

I then had a second c section ,2nd pregnancy scheduled 2 weeks before my due date by choice. Did I have another abortion? 

I then had to have 2 more c sections before 40 weeks because it was not safe to deliver lady partslly. 

So I had 4 abortions? 

The scenarios you describe are early delivery and are already in place to protect the woman's life. 

I would like to see an example of any republican/law or otherwise saying a woman who's life is in danger cannot have an intervention ealier than their due date. Have one? 

The only issue is ending the pregnancy and ending the life of the fetus. No removing the baby when viable to save the mother. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
On 5/9/2022 at 1:23 PM, nursej22 said:

I already have representatives who share my view. I just don't think they are the best qualified people to make such private medical decisions for all.

I also don't think they should apply the religious doctrine of one faith in blanket manner, such as stating life begins at conception. 

 

I know. Kind of like saying there is no biological sex. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
On 5/9/2022 at 7:14 AM, Tweety said:

I'm not sure that "many" want unrestricted abortions but want to leave those choices between the doctor and the patient rather than the government making these decisions.  It does seem to be a sticky issue.

But to make a big deal out of rare and outlying cases and fear monger that "Democrats want abort full term babies" is not accurate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/biden-ryan-late-abortion/

Nor is, "conservatives will prevent procedures to safe a woman's life even if they could die continuing the pregnancy". 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion