So what did he expect might happen? Kavanaugh had to sneak out the bad door. A Morton restaurant spokesperson said, “Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner.” Freedom? Perhaps Kavanaugh didn’t quite understand Alito when he said “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” So since eating at Morton’s isn’t “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” then there’s no freedom to trample. ShutDownDC group offers bounties on Twitter for conservative Supreme Court justices public sightings | Daily Mail Online
Abhorrent stuff. Curious if anyone thinks these tactics of harassment work or just further cement the person’s ideology. As the old saying goes, you’ll get more flies with honey than vinegar. Where were these dummies when we needed Hilary to win?
I agree it's abhorrent and nothing I would ever do, and likely ineffective. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the arguments that raise how much the Right, as a conscious political tactic, uses the threat of violence and harassment against individual public actors, like is currently occurring with educators and public health officials as well as elected officials. The Supreme Court in 2014 expressly held that employees of abortion clinics could be picketed at their homes as a form of free speech. It's part of the reason that Maryland officials said that the law on the books prohibiting protesting at private homes is unconstitutional and they would not enforce it for Supreme Court justices when they're not permitted to enforce it for abortion clinic employee employees. In my perfect world, nothing like this would ever occur. Whatever we disagree with him about, he would eat dinner in peace. But we do live in a world in which the political movement he advances, and I chose my words carefully, as I view him more as a political actor than a judge, explicitly endorses targeted harassment and even raising the threat of violence against other public officials as a tool of political action. It feels in an odd way like a lot of the tactics to raise big money for campaigns. I hate that movements and politicians I agree with often have to to raise money and compromise some of the perceived public interest to do so. At the same time, we're in a competitive democracy, at least for now, and when the other side is doing it and gaining far greater resources, you feel like you put yourself at a disadvantage if you morally abstain. I don't want any public official to have their dinner disturbed or feel threatened. But the other side is using that as a tactic to great advantage, and there is an imbalance because of it
I think the idea of bounties to locate where they are eating or to otherwise actively track them is pretty trashy, that crosses slightly over towards stalking or harassment. But theoretically if the patrons in a restaurant spontaneously “booooo” a reviled character, that’s as American as apple pie. There is no right to enjoy a “quiet” dinner. It’s up to the owner of an establishment to decide where their line is, or who they want to banish.
Almost 60 years ago there was a powerful song by Barry McGuire called “Eve of Destruction” that mentioned most of the issues we have today. Your question makes this verse stand out to me. “Yeah, my blood's so mad, feels like coagulatin' I'm sittin' here just contemplatin' I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation Handful of senators don't pass legislation And marches alone can't bring integration When human respect is disintegratin' This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'” The right set the rules of confrontation, so why should those fighting for freedoms that are being taken away be forced to play by a different set of rules?
It’s a good song. Thanks for sharing. I did not grow up in segregation and pre-1964. It’s not lost on me that certain tactics were necessary in those times. The rules of engagement have changed now and activating people to vote and advocating positive change is very different. Everything is on video now. Everything is twisted and turned now. Snips and deep fakes are abound. What is the point if the action does NOT bring new voters to your side?
i dont see anyone harrassing kagan or sotamayor. if this becomes the norm its only a matter of time before this escalates into chaos.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I see no reason for anyone whose rights are being taken away lie down and do nothing just so others will think better of them. Neville Chamberlain tried that with Hitler and look where that got him.
I consider it far more constructive to put energy into getting people to vote rather than harass far right judges.
Why should Kagan or Sotamayor be harassed? They aren’t voting to take rights away, and for the record we are already in chaos. Jan. 6 should have showed you that.
Kagan & Sotsmayor aren’t peeling back 50 years of American rights. They expand rights. They don’t take them away.
I agree and it's nothing I would ever do. But you reap what you sow. When these justices went so far out of their way to come up with a ridiculous rationale to overturn Roe v Wade, this is what they were signing up for.
These justices have finite lifespans and influence. They don’t get to take away our humanity. You are absolutely correct that the fight for individual rights has taken a massive step backwards. It’s infuriating. However, we need to set aside misplaced anger and active people to meaningful action. I feel bad for those that side with the GOP (not true Republicans). They unleashed the genie from the bottle. It was really a dumb move.
