Jonathan Turley expressed my sentiments exactly: while radical pro-choice activists theoretically have the right, under the First Amendment, to protest where they want to, we have reached a new low when people are targeting individual Supreme Court justices at their private homes in an effort to influence their judgments. (I also think the pro-lifers who marked to Justice Samuel Alito's home this week to than him for his draft decision were wrong.)
There are laws against disruptive protests during judicial proceedings. I am not sure a protest on a public sidewalk would qualify as a violation; probably not.
However, as Rhoda Kadalie said, in another context: just because you have the right, in theory, to do something, that does not mean it is right for you to do it.
Meanwhile, the execrable Adam Schiff is complaining that the courts do not represent the majority will of the people. There is a legitimate criticism to make regarding what political theorists call the "countermajoritarian" problem with courts. However, that is a feature, not a bug, of an independent judiciary.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
