Following the Dobbs leak, some Supreme Court justices faced relentless protests at their homes, seemingly intending to influence the Court’s decision. These types of “protests” clearly violate federal law. But U.S. Marshals were told not to make any arrests. Why?

May 3, 2023 · 5:49 PM UTC

1,192
2,308
108
6,336
Load newest
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
And here I thought the first ammendment was something you where a champion for. Or was it just when it suited you and your #MAGACult.
8
9
78
Replying to @Jim_Jordan @Ms_Betty_Bop
We know why, so do you. Garland is a tool for the Left.
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
8
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
It is concerning. Who is conspiring coverup of the leak and refusal to protect Justices?
Replying to @Jim_Jordan @Brian_Boroimhe
Blah blah blah #DoNothingGOP
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
Jim, I appreciate all you're doing, but really, we don't need people to sing the same song and expose the problems we already know we have. I know this is a start, but are we going to fix something? Are we going to take action? How do we get the accountability that the American people deserves? Before they start looking for justice by their own hands?
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
Protesting in a public place doesn't break any laws except maybe noise and permit ordinances. Which are crimes that carry at best a fine under 1k.
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
Corruption.
1
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
Because they were not illegal protests.
Replying to @Jim_Jordan
Another worthless letter that will result in zero action.
2
22
Load more