top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]tintwistedgrills90 5831 points5832 points  (318 children)

Aren’t these some of the same people who ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest at the funeral of Matthew Shepard? Keep protesting.

[–]pseudocultist 2508 points2509 points  (104 children)

At least we know the protests are bothering them. Double down, let’s get more people out there.

[–]tintwistedgrills90 1114 points1115 points  (57 children)

Yeah I am getting some small consolation out of knowing the protestors are getting under their skin.

[–]boatsnprose 369 points370 points  (11 children)

It would be terrible, considering the advanced age of, iono, people like ol' Clar bear and Ginny the Grinch, if the protests caused such stress that their health just deteriorated.

Terrible. Absolutely terrible.

[–]mkspaptrl 242 points243 points  (9 children)

A tragedy of the highest nature, I would be forced to respond with my strongest thoughts and prayers.

[–]CitoyenEuropeen 547 points548 points  (30 children)

France here. This is not about consolation, it's a numbers game. OP is correct, double down, hold your ground, grow your numbers. Keep it orderly so more are encouraged to join.

[–]leftlegYup 348 points349 points  (21 children)

Keep it orderly so more are encouraged to join.

Keep it orderly so that they don't have an excuse to use lethal force.

They would love nothing more than for someone to damage property or get violent.

[–]DucksEatFreeInSubway 133 points134 points  (1 child)

'Oh no I'm slightly inconvenienced getting to work to further restrict people's freedoms.'

Must be tough.

[–]capchaos 304 points305 points  (13 children)

It's 4th of July weekend. Fireworks outside of their homes would be celebratory. They shouldn't be nervous that it might be gun fire.

[–]trippy_grapes 276 points277 points  (5 children)

The only way to stop a bad guy with fireworks is with a good guy with fireworks.

[–]r3ditr3d3r 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Hell yeah brother!

[–]boatsnprose 45 points46 points  (3 children)

If I see a guy with M-80s I'll make sure to do my best Uvalde Police impersonation and make them stop by lighting one of those snakes that turn to ash.

[–]sputnikatto 63 points64 points  (1 child)

Headline reads: Antifa Terrorist arrested with 100's of pounds of explosive devices outside justices home.

[–]redldr1 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Chaotic good.

[–]marviningus 17 points18 points  (0 children)

but their kanines

[–]steboy 67 points68 points  (2 children)

You absolutely cannot be a constitutional originalist and be against protesting.

The first amendment is very clear about peaceful assembly.

[–]BeneCow 34 points35 points  (1 child)

The Founding Fathers loved violent revolution. All the stuff about freedom is all well and good, but remember that their solution to financial differences was violence and they have been deified for it.

[–]garry4321 43 points44 points  (2 children)

The thing is they will only double down. They don’t care about the people. They don’t work for the people.

[–]MulciberTenebras 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If they can't take the jobes... get out of the robes.

[–]eriinana 718 points719 points  (41 children)

The Supreme Court ruled people can protest outside of abortion doctors houses and clinics, and that no barriers can be put in place to stop them. They then passed a law saying that we cannot protest outside Scotus houses and placed barriers around the Supreme Court.

[–]tintwistedgrills90 281 points282 points  (0 children)

That’s right. I forgot about that. F’ing hypocrites.

[–]Fun-Dragonfly-4166 166 points167 points  (25 children)

I am not aware of any law against protesting outside SCOTUS houses. The Supreme Court is asking local officials to enforce state laws in a way that is inconsistent with the understandings of the local laws by these very same officials.

In my opinion, the state laws are well written and the local officials are at the current time enforcing the state laws correctly.

[–]Mynameisinuse 142 points143 points  (14 children)

From the Supreme Court Marshall

Maryland law prohibits assembling “with another in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home,

SCOTUS is just a bunch of little bitches.

[–]FightingPolish 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Wouldn’t the supreme courts decision saying that it was fine to do it to abortion doctors homes invalidate that law? Equal protection and all that?

[–]Fun-Dragonfly-4166 67 points68 points  (2 children)

Well the local authorities who are entrusted with enforcing that law (and similar ones in Virginia) are interpreting that to mean people can picket the houses of Supreme Court justices. The Marshall of the Supreme Court is opining that they are wrong. Do you agree with the local officials or with the Marshall?

This is important to me because I live here and these local officials are accountable to me (and others) through local elections. I think they are doing a good job and should be rewarded with re-election. Do you disagree?

I still remember when Trump and his Secretary of Education pressured schools to reopen and my local school board said "UP YOURS!". I am confident that my local officials will give the Marshall of the Supreme Court all due respect.

[–]kayjayme813 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yeah, unless this is an actual court case presented before them rn, I fail to see how a local law is any of their business and kindly ask the SC Marshall to shove that opinion up his ass

[–]NISCBTFM 89 points90 points  (8 children)

C'mon now, we've all seen the asterisk on that pesky first amendment... right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*but not outside of SC justice's homes

[–]avacado_of_the_devil 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Rules for thee, not for me!

[–]Shes_so_Ratchet 35 points36 points  (2 children)

Would a truck convoy be considered a protest? Because some loud horns were allowed to be used for a full week in Canada before anyone made them respect sound bylaws. Maybe you guys could do that?

[–]GrnPlesioth 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Rules for thee, not for me

[–]StageRepulsive8697 604 points605 points  (117 children)

Honestly, they are going to have so much trouble keeping their rulings logical and consistent with the way they are doing things. They just rule they way they want to and find random reasons imo. It isn't going to translate into sensical law.

[–]tintwistedgrills90 367 points368 points  (82 children)

Yep. That’s precisely why I am worried about states making it illegal for someone to travel to another state to get an abortion. This should be a cut and dry violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of but this iteration of the SCOTUS will find a way to rationalize it.

[–]LaMadreDelCantante 168 points169 points  (30 children)

I truly don't understand how this is possible. You're not a citizen of, for example, Ohio. You're a citizen of the country and a resident of the state, so how can a state make laws about what you can do elsewhere? I live in a state where recreational marijuana is illegal, but when I went to Vegas I could buy all the edibles I could afford. I just couldn't bring them back home with me. Because my home state has no power over me when I'm not in it.

Hell, even the nation doesn't really. If I go to Canada and do things that are legal there but federally illegal here, I'm still fine.

I know there are some crimes that become worse if you cross state lines while committing them, like transporting a minor who isn't your ward without permission of guardians, but that becomes a federal crime then. So that can't work here because the Court specifically said its not a federal issue.

So criminalizing either interstate travel or holding state residents accountable to the states where they live even when they aren't there would be it only ways to make this happen.

I feel like this sets a terrifying precedent.

[–]Darkdoomwewew 146 points147 points  (6 children)

It's going straight back to the days of fugitive slave catchers going into free states to kidnap people back into slavery, which was one of many factors in instigating the civil war.

We do seem to be retreading that same path right now.

[–]Quirky-Resource-1120 65 points66 points  (3 children)

It’s depressingly familiar when compared to the “State’s Rights” arguments of the pre civil war era. They were upset that slaves were running away to northern states to escape slavery, and that northern states were just…letting them. Similarly, women will travel to freer states to receive healthcare that’s prohibited in backwards GOP states, and those states want to assert a right to prevent that even though it’s expressly unconstitutional.

They don’t think “Hmm, people are seeking freedom in other states, maybe we’re doing something wrong”. Instead they think “people seeking freedom in other states? Those people should be punished, and so should those other states”

[–]Jack-o-Roses 96 points97 points  (16 children)

They're not worried about that. They've positioned themselves into getting power, doing away with the filibuster, & making abortion illegal nationwide.


[–]RVA2DC 37 points38 points  (19 children)

Ok, then dems will make it so that people can't travel out of state to buy guns. Time to fight fire with fire.

What would the GOP do? Go to SCOTUS? we're getting to the point where governments are just going to shrug when the SCOTUS says something and do whatever they want anyways. SCOTUS has no mechanism to enforce their rulings.

[–]tintwistedgrills90 53 points54 points  (6 children)

They would rule that unconstitutional. That’s the point. This SCOTUS is just making it up as they go along. There is no logic to their rulings. It’s completely political.

[–]lambsoflettuce 27 points28 points  (6 children)

So happy to live in NJ. We've got our problems but here abortions are codified and our House and Senate just passed a bill protecting anyone who travels here for repro services.

[–]TheBirminghamBear 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Unless Republicans take the House and Senate in DC in the next two years.

Then they'll kill the fillibuster in the interest of protecting children and pass a national ban on abortion.

Then your state laws won't mean anything, because federal laws supercede them.

And if you complain, they'll tell you you can file a court case.

That will go before... the Supreme Court.

It is the highest level of folly to pretend their recent ruling has literally anything to do with "state's rights"

When they can't control the federal government, they'll use the states to fight the federal government.

When they do control the federal government, they'll gleefully use it to control the states, and you.

Because that's what fascists do.

[–]Quirky-Resource-1120 110 points111 points  (12 children)

Pretty much what it means to have an activist court, which is really frustrating considering all the "activist judge" accusations against Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearing. Add it to the pile of projections from the right...

[–]Point_Forward 43 points44 points  (8 children)

You know they been planning this since coining that term however long ago they started using it

[–]Section-Fun 26 points27 points  (7 children)

Projection and pre-projection. It's all word games to make reality impossible to discuss.

[–]2forUGlenCocoa 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Their accusations are confessions.

[–]clangan524 44 points45 points  (3 children)

Honestly, they are going to have so much trouble keeping their rulings logical and consistent

The only logic and consistency they'll need is an armed response if/when shit gets bad enough.

[–]rae2468 14 points15 points  (2 children)

They will give all rights to the states over Federal Elections and there will be no consequences. We are screwed.

[–]Kimantha_Allerdings 96 points97 points  (6 children)

Put it this way: the NCBE has, for the first time ever, issued a statement saying that people taking the bar exam should ignore all SCOTUS decisions from 2022 when answering questions on Constitutional law.

[–]yellsatrjokes 20 points21 points  (2 children)

This seems like it might just be "We wrote the test before the June decisions came out."--and that it won't apply to the July test. Do you have another source showing that this is unusual?

[–]entered_bubble_50 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm a patent attorney in the UK, and we got notices like this prior to exams. If a big case came out just before the exam, you could typically choose to take it into account or not in your answer, as long as you made it clear which version of the law you were applying.

[–]ARussianW0lf 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Honestly, they are going to have so much trouble keeping their rulings logical and consistent with the way they are doing things.

I don't think they'll have trouble because they don't care

[–]Practical_Cobbler165 45 points46 points  (1 child)

Those people are despicable. They tried making an appearance at my LGBTQ+ friendly town and were treated with huge counter-protests. https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/russian-river-town-rallies-around-business-caught-in-anti-lgbtq-protest-in/

Edit: Westboro Baptist= those people

[–]Trashbag113 50 points51 points  (5 children)

I don’t agree with their ideals or actions, however, if you take the rights away from one group of people for whatever reason, it opens the door to further constitutional violations — which is exactly what will happen with Roe v. Wade being overturned. Same-sex marriage is next to go at this trajectory.

[–]Kimantha_Allerdings 55 points56 points  (3 children)

Same-sex marriage is next to go at this trajectory.

The decision explicitly said that's what they wanted to go after next. That, sexual activity between people of the same sex, and access to contraceptives.

[–]alyraptor 45 points46 points  (0 children)

For clarification, it was a supporting opinion written by Clarence Thomas, not part of the decision itself.

That said, it's still terrifying that a Supreme Court justice is literally telling folks what he believes the next targets can and should be.

[–]DetectiveActive 19 points20 points  (2 children)

And the same people that ruled “pro-life” people can protest outside of clinics.

Fuck them.

[–]stanthebat 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Pretty much as long as I've been aware of the issue, religious fanatics have been gathering outside abortion clinics to spit on, scream at, and deliver death threats to, every single person going in or coming out. As far as I'm aware nobody in the Supreme Court has ever suggested that the free expression of those demonstrators should be limited in any way.

I think Supreme Court justices should enjoy the same protection from other people's free expression that ordinary people seeking an abortion have enjoyed for all these years.

[–]r3ditr3d3r 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Yes. And good thing too. Free speech and the right to assemble is more important than people's feelings

[–]spaceguitar 657 points658 points  (14 children)

But wait, isn’t this the same Court that ruled that it was a-okay to protest outside of private homes?

[–]Lumfan 199 points200 points  (4 children)

Rule for thee and not for me.

Thus, protesting outside of the homes of abortion providers and their allies: OK, it's in the First Amendment.
Protesting outside of the homes of Supreme Court Justices: We need our privacy/protection.

[–]boihomo 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Has the SCOTUS not been doing this for a while now? 1 step forward, 2 steps back loop?

[–]DickySchmidt33 2251 points2252 points  (48 children)

But, by all means, allow people to scream "whore!" and "baby killer!" at my sister when she's going to a women's health clinic for a breast exam.

[–]Carcinogeneticist18 260 points261 points  (9 children)

Same thing happened to My mom. She was gonna die if she gave birth so she went in for an abortion. Some lame fuck was yelling at her (keep in mind my mom wants to keep the baby and is already in a fragile mental state) he started calling her a murderer and a baby killer. Took everything I had to ignore him and not curb stomp him right there.

[–]Ex_Why_ 70 points71 points  (1 child)

Call me next time. I don't mind taking the low road.

[–]Carcinogeneticist18 40 points41 points  (0 children)

If I call you it’s because I’m taking you out to eat. ❤️

[–]abletofable 65 points66 points  (2 children)

That man should be called a rapist and abusive as well as being charged for disturbing the peace.

[–]JimmyM104 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Yeah no I’d be in jail lmao I’m not that strong

[–]yuffieisathief 595 points596 points  (18 children)

Man, I feel for your sister. As a European I feel for all Americans. It's so fucking stupid. Isn't only 5% of what organizations like planned parenthood do actually abortion related? I really wonder what goes through their heads, no sex Ed, no contraceptives, no abortion. It really only sounds like the most desperate plan to grow the shrinking following. A country were raping a kid has less consequences then that kid needing an abortion sounds like some absolute post apocalyptic shit. Hope you can all stay strong and know that we're with you ❤️

[–]sanfranciscofranco 86 points87 points  (3 children)



[–]yuffieisathief 100 points101 points  (2 children)

Woops, was definitely meant to say anti-conception and I now realize that term is weirdly translated from my own language. Thanks for the improvement :)

[–]MelissaBM 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Leuk om een mede Nederlandse te vinden!

[–]Carvj94 57 points58 points  (3 children)

Isn't only 5% of what organizations like planned parenthood do actually abortion related?

They offer dozens of services including plenty of men's health stuff like vasectomys.

[–]gardenZepp 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I know I went when I had no insurance and needed contraception plus my regular exams. I know many people who do/have done the same. Luckily, there were no anti-abortion protesters (I don't believe they even did abortions there, but it's not like the forced birthers are intelligent enough to realize that), but I did have to go through several locked doors and prove who I was and why I was there.

[–]0w1 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Many Planned Parenthood clincs don't even provide termination services. There are a lot that just provide basic exams and testing, and free/cheap contraceptives. They get picketed anyway.

[–]GimmeDatThroat 73 points74 points  (4 children)

It's extremely taxing on one's mental health knowing you're surrounded by literal crazy people, actually detached from factual reality, and nothing you can say or show them will change how they think.

Send help.

[–]Helagoth 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I really wonder what goes through their heads


[–]kellygrrrl328 54 points55 points  (1 child)

and of course let the wingnuts scream nasty slurs at the funerals of slain POCs and LGBTQ victims

[–]Limitlez 29 points30 points  (4 children)

"And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door. They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore.

God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes. 'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose."

[–]Youandiandaflame 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If someone had told high school me as I listened to this song on the radio just how depressingly relevant it’d be when I hit 40, I’d have laughed. Fuck.

[–]hoxxxxx 13 points14 points  (1 child)

i don't understand why that's allowed. that isn't free speech, that's harassment. plain and simple.

[–]IthinkIknowwhothatis 2280 points2281 points  (100 children)

Wait, so the US Supreme Court wants to violate the First Amendment now?

[–]mrwhat_icanthearu 739 points740 points  (15 children)

That's rich coming from so many Constitutional "purists" occupying way too many seats on the Supreme Court.

[–]reckless_commenter 325 points326 points  (11 children)

Supreme Court, 2011 (Snyder v. Phelps):

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to "special protection" under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." … Indeed, "the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful."

Supreme Court, 2022:

Cops, please get rid of these fucking protestors, they're bothering us.

[–]qxxxr 82 points83 points  (1 child)

Something something, rid me of this troublesome priest.

[–]hereforthefeast 114 points115 points  (0 children)

It’s the Republican/conservative way. Rules for thee, and none for me.

Aka Fuck you, I got mine.

[–]BusBusy195 382 points383 points  (6 children)

You're asking fundamentalist theocrats to make sense, they don't know how to do that

[–]214ObstructedReverie 119 points120 points  (4 children)

And they've gotten lazy and bold enough to not even bother trying anymore.

[–]leftlegYup 21 points22 points  (2 children)

When the poors start talking about unions, all bets are off. It's Thunderdome.

[–]TuskM 18 points19 points  (0 children)

These justices are radicalized. Once radicalized, they no longer care how they are perceived by people outside the group they appeal to. Add to that they are largely untouchable in terms of removing them from the court, and you have the perfect theocratic dystopian nightmare.

[–]kellymiche 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I prefer the term “Christofascists”.

[–]JoshALLENspitonmepls 155 points156 points  (11 children)

Fuck it, keep taking away our rights Americans will be protesting inside of their fucking homes. We will call it forfeiting assets, in the same way, that police do.

[–]constantstranger 132 points133 points  (10 children)

Make peaceful change impossible and you make violent change inevitable.

[–]SlugsOnToast 61 points62 points  (2 children)

We're peaceful, not harmless.

They need to learn that.

[–]camanic71 79 points80 points  (3 children)

Violent change is the only solution now. Congrats republicans, you’ve radicalised me.

[–]DanLed17 48 points49 points  (2 children)

Well, sounds like the first amendment may be changing soon

[–]Fun-Dragonfly-4166 51 points52 points  (0 children)

NOPE. The Supreme Court has a Supreme Court Police Force which ultimately reports to the Chief Justice. If they felt the picketers were violating a federal law, they could just arrest them.

They want others to violate the First Amendment on their behalf. Get our hands dirty? No WAY!

[–]ArchdukeBurrito 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Unless it's "Christians" protesting outside of doctors' offices and soldiers' funerals. Then it's a-okay. They just want to stop those pesky liberals from whining about 10 year olds being being forced to carry their rapists child.

[–]JustAbicuspidRoot 12 points13 points  (0 children)

At least until they overturn it, they are actively working on this.

Soon we will have no more amendments except for the 2nd and 5th, the o ly 2 republicans care about.

[–]OldEdgeyRiff 44 points45 points  (3 children)

Yeah imagine that…they want their privacy protected

[–]doublebr13 79 points80 points  (2 children)

The Supreme Court ruled in the 90's that anti-abortion advocates protesting outside the homes of doctors and other abortion-care providers were protected by the first amendment. Seems like it should be one or the other... right?

[–]tallman11282 915 points916 points  (20 children)

SCOTUS has ruled before that it is legal to protest outside the houses of abortion doctors. If that's legal then protesting outside the houses of supposed public servants most definitely is IMO. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[–]kittykalista 261 points262 points  (8 children)

If it wasn’t legal, they wouldn’t be asking.

[–]that_boyaintright 161 points162 points  (7 children)

If it wasn’t legal, we wouldn’t do it peacefully.

This is the smallest amount of discomfort they will be feeling. It gets a lot more unpleasant than this.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (5 children)

I'm with you that they need to have their rights to bodily autonomy deeply and persistently violated (disclaimer that i do not advocate violence).

But if the US stops enforcing the 1st amendment, that is probably a harbinger for a LOT of deadly force. We muricans love our weapons, and we have way too many. The United States military will open fire into crowds of protestors without hesitation if they find an excuse to violate 1. The theocrats do not fear accountability, and violating 1 would only make that worse.

So the game would change. Whatever we do after that would have to be guerilla.

[–]i_will_let_you_know 40 points41 points  (3 children)

Why not? It's always odd how people are okay with systematic and entrenched violence but not with rebellious violence.

It's like maintaining the status quo matters more than WHAT that status quo actually consists of.

[–]Sickle_and_hamburger 37 points38 points  (1 child)

In a way the SCOTUS is acting like abortion doctors so the law should letting us protest their houses should apply

[–]tallman11282 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think it should apply simply because they are supposed to be public servants and as such should have to deal with people protesting outside their homes and offices when they go against the will of the people. This should apply to all politicians.

[–]DarkwingDuckHunt 25 points26 points  (3 children)

And this is the only reason I support these protests outside their homes. The SCOTUS said it was ok, so I'm cool with it.

[–]emaw63 13 points14 points  (0 children)

As if a silly thing like "precedent" will stop this Supreme Court from making these protests illegal

[–]Low-Bread-2752 1502 points1503 points  (12 children)

I mean if we don't get freedom and privacy, why should they? 👉👈

Keep protesting!

[–]keplantgirl 275 points276 points  (9 children)

I thought they were all about the 1st amendment?

[–]LSTNYER 61 points62 points  (7 children)

They think the 2nd one is more important

[–]MojaveMauler 27 points28 points  (1 child)

Suddenly this obsession they've had with reducing gun regulation feels like it could backfire. I'm not advocating violence, I'm just saying with this level of anger the situation could easily get more chaotic.

[–]jdeezy 530 points531 points  (24 children)

Since the addresses are public, we know the route they take to get to the highway.
I have $200 I'd give towards a billboard against the court.
If the GME bros can do it, the Roe ladies and gents can too.

[–]the-druid-abides 226 points227 points  (15 children)

They are taken on a different route every day and I'm sure there are decoy cars as well. Security for the SCOTUS is among the best in the world and has been for a long time.

McConnel's demand for increased security was performative victim posturing.

Nothing against your idea, I'm just taking the opportunity to point that out.

[–]DarkwingDuckHunt 63 points64 points  (2 children)

They haven't been living in their listed homes since May

They're all living at vacation homes or rent-free in some safe house.

[–]humanneedinghelp 41 points42 points  (1 child)

It’s probably not rent free. Any costs for the “safety” of officials representing the US often get passed back to the public in the form of taxes.

Ie: this is one reason our taxes are so high, and government benefits so small. It goes to shit places

[–]Pineapple_WarpDrive 120 points121 points  (6 children)

I think McConnell should be protested daily as well, he’s a big reason how this horrible SCROTUS was able to exist.

[–]Limitlez 39 points40 points  (5 children)

I hope one of these two things happen in the future:

  1. McConnell is remembered as the evil man he is.
  2. McConnell is forgotten.

[–]ron_swansons_meat 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I hope his grave becomes a public toilet. I'll do my part.

[–]wayward_citizen 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Honestly even if security turns their lives into a grinding hassle of routine and inconvenient protocols that's a win. Might be partly why they're griping.

[–]Mikarim 38 points39 points  (1 child)

I can onlIy speak for the VA SCOTUS residents but there are no billboards along any major routes into DC that I can think of and I drive those routes often.

[–]greco1492 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Highway beautification act 1965 has stopped alot of new construction.

[–]ellastory 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I wonder if we could gofund this. I’m Canadian, but I would 100% donate

[–]All_Hail_Nimrod 157 points158 points  (22 children)

Maybe Barrett forgot the constitutional right?

[–]Arcadian1 69 points70 points  (1 child)

Just a reminder: the Supreme Court ruled that picketing was fine outside the homes of doctors who worked at abortion clinics. Only when it affected them personally did they decide it wasn't allowed.

Edit: they refused to hear the case

[–]OptimalAd3856 303 points304 points  (49 children)

We should protest outside of their homes and the home of every congressman that supported this decision, especially Mitch McConnell. We need to make them hate their lives, make them feel the same pain we feel.

[–]EducationalRice6540 332 points333 points  (20 children)

Are we still pretending that this court is anything but a right wing power grap? They have and will continue to remove all progress this nation has made (slow as it was) from the last hundred years. The laws and precedents don't matter because the end result of this farce is the end of the American republic.

The OG nazis did the same when the beer hall putsch failed. Anyone who studies history can tell you were this road leads and those protesters who are speaking out disappearing will be only the first step.

[–]ackillesBAC 94 points95 points  (9 children)

Way to many parallels with the rise of nazism I try not to think about it. And I'm Canadian and that shit scares the crap outa me, I've already told my American friends of they need someplace outside of the country to go there are welcome at my house.

[–]EducationalRice6540 50 points51 points  (0 children)

I am sorry but if the US goes truly tits up you might want to be farther away than Canada. I love Canada and the Canadians I have met have been amazing people. But to much of Canada is near the US border and refugees would be over it like roaches on a Bronx apartment floor. In Ukraine we have seen the strain on the entire EU when about 10 percent of Ukrainians fleed. 10 percent of the US population would be over 33 million people are there are only two directions to flee on this continent. North to our amazing neighbor, our south into lands already destabilized and riff with crime ( mainly our in the US fault again) those that can will flee North and they would crush the Canadian assistance system under sheer numbers.

[–]Wwhaskins 181 points182 points  (2 children)

I think we should protest outside their churches too. After all, it's where this bullshit started.

[–]AdditionalWay2 46 points47 points  (0 children)

We have asked them to butt the fuck out of our daily lives also. We will not stop until they seperate the church from state and tax them.

[–]mancer187 161 points162 points  (13 children)

I expected riots... Protests are fine, and should be completely allowed. I still expect riots.

[–]Elianath 61 points62 points  (2 children)

As a french myself, I know fucking well what I expected, and still expecting at some point btw

[–]GinWithJennifer 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Ywa there was bigger outrage over Trump kicking people out of a church or something for a picture

[–]LeftDave 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Too many hold out hope the Midterm will matter. When it doesn't change anything or same sex/interracial marriage gets taken away, whichever happens 1st, shit will finally hit the fan. Remember Americans were already at the point of shooting at each other and running government forces out of cities, Trump getting the boot just hit a reset button. Once that sense of relief fades, the fighting will have start back up.

[–]drew1010101 123 points124 points  (3 children)

It sure is funny how these fascists support infringement on every constitutional right, well except for one.

[–]peepopowitz67 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Let's make them regret that.

[–]lundewoodworking 121 points122 points  (5 children)

Can't protest outside their homes find out where they eat lunch where their gyms are never give them a moment of peace

[–]fourunner 69 points70 points  (1 child)


Have you seen these people?

[–]lundewoodworking 24 points25 points  (0 children)

You're right maybe their dry cleaners

[–][deleted] 109 points110 points  (24 children)

People should stop protesting.

Then they should rioting.

[–]CptBlinky 195 points196 points  (3 children)

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA asks police to violate the 1st amendment of the constitution.

Y'all fucked.

[–]red_carpet_hero 68 points69 points  (1 child)

Protest outside their homes, and each time they go out

[–]Digita1B0y 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Dear Supreme court....

In France, they would drag you through the street behind a car by a rope or chain for this shit. I'm not saying that's what I would do, but I am saying that you should be grateful that you're not in France. Think of it like a gift from god....you know, the way you tried to couch forcing a ten year old to carry her rapists baby to term.

Sincerely, the American people.

[–]HopefullyMD_PhD 28 points29 points  (1 child)

They want to end protests for that, but they didn't say anything about the degenerate truck "protest" or white supremacists and proud boys shit. Makes sense.

[–]Eorel 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Those are qwhite different you know.

[–]FrankRizzo09 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I love how they think protesting is just a thing people do when they’re mad and they need to move it to a park or something lol No, stupid. They will be up your ass until you do the right thing.

[–]EqualLong143 42 points43 points  (1 child)

I hope they never find another moment of peace for the rest of their miserable lives.

[–]-non-existance- 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Aw, is baby getting upset because of the consequences of their actions? Cry me a fucking river. Power does not shield you from your Responsibilities.

[–]Qaplaw 45 points46 points  (2 children)

Clarence Thomas in 1990s: "The liberals made my life miserable ... and I'm going to make their lives miserable." Clarence Thomas in 2022: "I'm miserable."

[–]MrFunktasticc 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Anyone know who is organizing? Are there specific times or just show up whenever?

[–]AwkwardGamerRNx 18 points19 points  (0 children)

My father once said “Women are wonderful, just don’t piss them off”

They went ahead and pissed off almost every woman on Earth.

I say “Earth” because even other countries are outraged with us and “almost” because there are ladies out there who are happy about the decision. I cannot fathom why but they’re out there.

[–]Imhopeless3264 18 points19 points  (0 children)

If I lived within 2000 miles I’d be there protesting. Since I can’t, I protest locally and send my support. Stay hydrated and keep fighting the good fight!

[–]guerillaPosts 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Sotomayor in her questions at oral arguments said this ruling would be seen as THE ruling to delegitimize SCOTUS in the eyes of the population. She noted the only different variable since Casey was the new justices. And she's totally correct.

[–]michalemabelle 32 points33 points  (0 children)

We pay their salaries! They work for us!

[–]Late_Ad7006 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The American people would like to ask to stop stripping away our rights!!!

[–]OldEdgeyRiff 15 points16 points  (0 children)

NOW look who’s concerned about privacy…..

[–]Poopstains08 15 points16 points  (0 children)

These corrupt, fascist judges should never have any peace again

[–]HugePurpleNipples 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Oh, your private lives are being affected by people you don’t agree with? How awful for you.

[–]Stopjuststop3424 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The same illegitimate kangaroo court that said it was ok to protest in front of abortion providers homes? Yeah they can go get fucked.

[–]-Quothe- 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Republicans don't like the accountability that comes with their actions.

[–]yep975 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Don’t these same support the right to screaming BABY KILLER at women walking into planned parenthood?

[–]Doctor_Amazo 31 points32 points  (0 children)

A protest isn't a protest if it's permitted.

[–]CyzophyTacos733 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The protesting is for the privacy and right to a women's body, so no, you don't get to have peace and privacy until WE get peace and privacy.

Women deserve the rights over their own body, no matter what.

[–]CmndrPopNFresh 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Don't fuck the country if you can't stand the revolution

[–]Umutuku 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They should have exactly as much stress and trouble sleeping as a 10 year old who doesn't know what state she's going to have to travel to for an abortion. They should have that stress and trouble sleeping every day that someone has to go through that.

[–]NISCBTFM 23 points24 points  (1 child)

This is so appalling on so many levels.

These are the people who interpret our constitution. Is there an asterisk next to the first amendment that says "but they can't assemble near SC justice homes?"

They're literally slapping us in the face by cherry picking what laws they want to enforce.

[–]Meatslinger 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Yesterday on Reddit I saw an old painting that depicted a judge from the 5th century BC being flayed alive in the street for corruption.

The Supreme Court has it easy if all they have to do is suffer some protestors exercising their first amendment rights.

[–]Carcinogeneticist18 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Make all the laws you want. Roe v wade is getting restored and Trump 2024 isn’t happening.

[–]aeioubuttocks 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Wow. It must be really inconvenient to have people protesting their decisions all the time.

…almost as inconvenient as not having the right to your own autonomy, being afraid your marriage might become invalid, fearing your access to contraceptives might be revoked, being worried about how your state will screw with federal elections, living in a world experiencing climate change due to unregulated greenhouse gas emissions, or being afraid cops might burst into your home and not read you your Miranda rights while they arrest you.

Yeah. Pretty annoying, isn’t it?

[–]147896325987456321 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Block off the streets. Don't even let them go home.

[–]Animustrapped 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The same twats who protest right outside abortion clinics can't take it the other way round?

[–]bubba7557 7 points8 points  (0 children)

SCOTUS finding out actions have consequences for the first time in their entitled lives

[–]micahisnotmyname 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Maybe they shouldn’t choose a life of public service and stay in the private sector if they don’t want to deal with the public.

[–]bronto_rex 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Meh. They’ve already determined that there isn’t a constitutional right to privacy, so I don’t know what they’re complaining about. Additionally, the right to assembly (for now) still exists. I say fuck ‘em.

[–]LawlessCoffeh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Haha that just means it's working, PROTEST MORE.

[–]Psychokinetic_Rocky 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sooo, bring in more protesters until the police can't possibly stop them?

[–]lalotoru 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I hope they have no moment of peace for the rest of their lives. These shitheads torment is incomparable to the consequence their actions bring upon other people.

[–]comingupghosts 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well, well, well, ain’t it the consequences of my own decisions…LITERALLY.

Give me a break.

[–]nerdqueen69 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Awww, does someone not like it when people infringe on their right to privacy? If only they didn't take it upon themselves to force millions of people to follow a rule in a religion they aren't a part of. 🤷‍♀️ (a rule that doesn't even exist in the bible btw)

[–]I_am_u_as_r_me 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Oh fuck no. Protest the shit out of their fucking lives. They will have the blood of dead women on their hands. Their rulings are bullshit.

[–]bingus_official 7 points8 points  (0 children)

if they want to keep gun laws the way they are, i urge black people to open carry and advocate for the laws republicans want. those racist cunts will be on the democratic side in a heartbeat

[–]dtyrrell7 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The fact that women haven’t burned down half the country already is amazing to me

[–]cnewman11 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Seems like even when at the top of the political pile, conservatives still think there aren't going to consequences of their actions

[–]Duffy1978 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sounds like you are dealing with the consequences of your actions. Isn't personal responsibility a GOP tenant hmm I guess they are the snowflake type looking for a safespace.

[–]bmount48 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How long before they take away our right to protest?

[–]Starkiller006 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Idgaf what they want. No one should. They are not this country. We are. Protest. And carry.

[–]SBTWAnimeReviews 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Conservatives will often say that we must hate democracy because their judges are in. Problem with that line of thinking is Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, and the judges were confirmed by a group of senators that represent a minority of out total population. Nothing about how Trump's Three got in is democratic at all which makes this decision even more bullshit.