AOC Touts Blocking Supreme Court Security Bill After Kavanaugh Threat

[867-5309.]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Spazito (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Newsweek

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez touted her efforts to block the passage legislation aimed at increasing police protection for Supreme Court justices and their families on Thursday and cited stalled efforts at passing new gun control laws.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat who represents New York's 14th district, shared a video to her Instagram Stories purporting to show her rushing to the floor of the House of Representatives in order to object to unanimous consent for legislation...

"I wake up this morning and I start to hear murmurs that there is going to be an attempt to pass the Supreme Court Supplemental Protection Bill the day after gun safety legislation for schools and kids and people is stalled," she said.

"Oh, so we can pass protections for us and here easily, right? But we can't pass protections for everyday people? I think not."...

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-touts-blocking-supreme-court-security-bill-brett-kavanaugh-threat-1714922

---

[mathematic]

1. Protection against assassination attempts is a liberal value.

Quite surprising from somebody that felt their life was in danger due to political violence.

[CrispyQ]

6. Maybe if we dealt with the gun issue the justices wouldn't need protection. -nt

[Magoo48]

11. A human justice would say, "See to the nation's children first, then we'll return to this."

[onecaliberal]

18. EVERYONE is in jeopardy everyday that these war weapons are on the street.

Why should these people be afforded protections we do not have? They’re not better than any other human. This is the price you pay for the guns. Buy a bullet proof backpack and a steel door.

[area51]

23. +1 n/t

[Voltaire2]

2. She is right.

Democrats don’t know how to fight back. Here’s a clue: tie the kavanaugh protection bill to an assault weapon ban. Make the goons vote against protecting kavanaugh.

[LonePirate]

4. I was thinking the same thing. Pair the two items together. Force Repubs to vote against it.

[NewDayOranges]

5. +1,000

[ms liberty]

7. This. n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. Absolutely!

[onecaliberal]

19. SO MUCH THIS.

[oioioi]

20. Yes, she is right - as she usually is.

[Rebl2]

31. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[OnDoutside]

48. 100% agree.

[Retrograde]

66. That's essentially what I told my rep earlier this week

why is protecting SC justices more important that protecting elderly shoppers, or school children, or people in a hospital, or salon workers, or any other group? Enact a ban on the type of weapons used in the recent mass shootings and everyone benefit.

Besides, isn't it already illegal to stalk a person or threaten them, no matter what their status?

[CousinIT]

3. 100% agree with her! n/t

[comradebillyboy]

8. AOC provides Republicans with yet another video clip

to beat up Democrats with. Her social media activism may be emotionally gratifying but it's terrible politics and very counterproductive.

[oldsoftie]

12. I agree. The instant gratification goes over well with a lot of people

[Tommymac]

21. Well, this progressive disagrees with you totally. IMO AOC is doing the right thing.

And doing the right thing is always good politics.

That is all.

[Xoan]

25. God forbid ...

we piss off Republicans.

[comradebillyboy]

28. Republicans love it because this kind of nonsense helps them

make Democrats look lawless in the eyes of normal people.

[Justice matters.]

44. Counterpunch with Lawless RepubliQans...

[Ferrets are Cool]

41. I don't give a fuck if OUR SIDE supplies them with "yet another video clip"

They are ALWAYS going to find something. Let's let them fight the truth. Oh and, FUCK REPUGS.

[Escurumbele]

43. Well said

What is this bull about being afraid to piss off repubs? repubs will always find something to bitch about, so let them get pissed.

The moment they complain about AOC being against that bill to protect the crap that resides in the supreme court today they will get smacked about gun laws, it is a winning strategy for Democrats.

FUC& republicans!

[Ferrets are Cool]

58. ...

[SunImp]

61. +1

[Kid Berwyn]

67. +2

Hypocritical bastards.

[4139]

9. 100% wrong, don't forget about threats from right wing nuts....

Federal judge whose son was killed in attack says gunman targeted Sonia Sotomayor

“They found another gun, a Glock, more ammunition. But the most troubling thing they found was a manila folder with a workup on Justice Sonia Sotomayor,"

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/esther-salas-sonia-sotomayor-60-minutes-2021-02-19/

[Magoo48]

14. I commend her courage again.

Wallowing in fear of what Republicans might or might not do is not a good look.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

68. Guns don't kill people; manila folders kill people.

Judge Salas said, “They  found another gun, a Glock, more ammunition. But the most troubling thing they found was a manila folder with a workup on Justice Sonia Sotomayor."

Salas said it was chilling to see a Supreme Court member in the gunman's sights. "Who  knows what could have happened? But we need to understand that judges are at risk. [W]e put ourselves in great danger every day for doing our jobs." 

She could have said the same thing substituting the word "teachers" for "judges."
-----------------------
I'm not concerned about AOC providing the Repugs with a sound clip. She could say "Good morning" to a Capitol policewoman and Tucker, Laura and Sean could each do an entire show about her disrespect for the Capitol policemen. It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault, of course.

[Polybius]

13. Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant

The swing voter is gonna disagree with her, plus it will look bad in commercials. You know they'll use it.

[867-5309.]

22. "Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant"

Wow.

[Polybius]

24. Wow what?

I want to win, do you?

[867-5309.]

30. How about we stop being afraid of our own shadow?

They deny gun control legislation, though that's an unpopular stand. They didn't pee their pants and squeal "mid-terms... we gotta do the popular thing" They said fuck it, you aint getting it.

I'd bet the vast majority of people would agree with AOC that gun control legislation should be part of the deal. Make that our position. You want to improve security, improve it for everyone. Make the repukes vote against that package.

[Polybius]

39. Nancy disagrees

Glad that she's the Speaker.

[Ferrets are Cool]

42. And of course, YOU are the expert on the "swing" voter.

Look, the right is going to find something to sling up against the wall. Let's let them fight the TRUTH and not be scared to tell it.

[Escurumbele]

46. Then Democrats can have a commercial showing how fast they move when THEY are threatened

but don't care when kids are killed with AK-14's.

This is a win strategy for Democrats, and I bet republicans know that if they complain about it they will get questions about gun control, and they don't want to have to answer those questions...

Well done AOC.

[wnylib]

50. Nothing radical or unusual about

AOC's proposal to include gun control with protection for SC justices. This kind of legislative bargaining goes on all the time in Congress. Legislators tack on their own tweaks to a bill.

AOC is just doing her job, pushing for legislation for the people of the US in the way it has been done many times before. I agree completely with her proposal and commend her for it.

[towerbum]

15. they can get there own damn security! won't protect kid's !

[Captain Zero]

35. And their abortion stances subject women to

Violent sexual predators and oppressive misogyny. No solutions for school children no solutions for women, then fuck them too, no solutions for gutless politicians and supreme court religious misogynists.

[The Grand Illuminist]

16. Not gonna work.

Idealistic battles almost always end up losing battles. No matter how noble it is.

[brush]

17. Not smart. Protection for threatened justices is a no-brainer. Even if ya...

don't like certain SCOTUS justices, of course you grant them increased security if they're being threatened. Would she also deny increased security for Justices Kagen, Sotomayor and the incoming Justice Jackson?

Of course not, I hope there will be better critical thinking than that going on with her soon. You move on from granting that increased security and parlay it as a bargain point into demanding increased security for schools, courts, Congress, other institutions, and of course the gun control legislation needed that makes increased security all around necessary.

God, Bragging about denying security for threatened justices. WTF is she thinking? She needs to learn how to make deals by saying, Ok, I'll give you that if you back me on this. Legislation is a collabrative give-and-take not a blocking out of spite exercise. You get nowhere doing that. She should see that in the republicans "always no" stances against gun control measures. Again, we get nowhere.

[867-5309.]

26. Where was the push when Sotomayor was threatened?

She's trying to package it with those other things. Are you suggesting she give that and then hope to get the rest later?

The GQP isn't afraid to ridiculously deny improved gun control legislation. I don't want harm to Kavanaugh, but I'm 100 times more concerned about another classfoom massacre. Maybe we need to stop being afraid of our own shadow.

[brush]

29. It just not a smart move. Her vote against security for threatend justices...

will be used in campaign ads to defeat Dems in districts not as deep blue like hers.

How in the hell can anyone thing voting against security for those threatened with violence is a good idea?

Again, not smart at all. You work to increase security for everyone, not to deny it to those you don't like.

We people of color have faced that crap all our lives, being denied benefits given to whites. Now she's doing it herself, and she's a POC and should know better.

[867-5309.]

34. The GQP wasn't concerned about mid-terms when blocking popular gun control measures

Yet we're too afraid to not deny increased protection for justices, but merely package it with gun control measures. Make them vote on that.

Stop being so goddamn afraid of what might be in a campaign ad. We do those, too.

[brush]

37. More what-aboutism you're stating? It's a dumb move. One doesn't vote against...

no-brainer legislation to spite what repubs did.

Guess that knowledge comes with maturity. You vote to do good. We know repubs are against anything sensible that helps people. We certainly shouldn't be doing the same thing.

[catbyte]

27. I wonder if they'd be that concerned if a gunman was found near, say, Justice Sotomayor's home.

🤔

[oioioi]

32. Spoiler: They weren't...

U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed and her husband wounded in an attack meant for her, says the gunman also had his sights on Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Salas reveals for the first time authorities found a dossier on Sotomayor in a locker used by her assailant, Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer who had a case before Salas and committed suicide after killing her son, Daniel. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/esther-salas-sonia-sotomayor-60-minutes-2021-02-19/

[brush]

38. I hope not. But with AOC voting against increased security for Kavanaugh...

vengeful repubs would certainly cite that as a reason to vote against it.

Increased security for all justices if needed is a no-brainer.

Use it as bargaining chip to increase security for schools, Congress itself, courts, other institutions, AND MOST OF ALL TO BARGAIN FOR GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION.

[OnDoutside]

45. This is another Infrastructure bill v BBB....pass this bill and we'll

look at protecting children after that. Fool me once...etc

[twodogsbarking]

33. She is drawing attention. Applause from me too.

[HAB911]

36. Just do it!

[onetexan]

40. Agree w AOC!!

[Escurumbele]

47. Many posts here seem to suggest for Democrats to think hard before they say anything to make sure

they won't piss republicans....WHAT IS GOING ON?

As if republicans think about not pissing USA citizens and the World when they feel like it. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Simply fight fire with fire...

There is a comeback question for republicans when they start complaining about it.

"Why would you pass laws that only protect justices but not kids, and why didn't any of you suggest anything when there were threats against Sotomayor?"

I want a repub to answer that...

Read this TWEET:

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216788882|

[Igel]

64. We lose track of the group self-identified as "independents".

Now, many (R) won't vote (D). But every election there are (R) that vote (D) and (D) that vote (R). Not a huge number, but we want to throw away votes?

Then there are those who refuse to say they're in either of the two dominant partyies. Many of these swing from one side to another, and cast the deciding votes. They may "lean" one way or another, but their votes aren't always consistent by any means. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/

Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the inveterate (R) and instead worry about those whose votes are a bit variable and therefore actually decide the election?

[BlueJac]

49. Bravo!

[gagarux]

51. Cowards die many times...

before their deaths". All this concern about "swing" voters and what the other side will do with AOC's comments is self-defeating. Do Republicans care about how swing voters vote because their party does not support popular positions such as Roe v Wade, universal voting rights, effective gun control legislation? Do they worry about how Dems will use comments by Mo Brooks, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, and Lauren Boebert? Somehow none of their party's aberrance seems to affect Republican voters at election time.

Ocasio-Cortex should defend her position loudly and proudly. I think most Dem "swing" voters would applaud her for displaying moral rectitude and courage instead of the usual rolling over to GOP demands to support popular positions. She should not invoke the threats against Sotomayor as a counterpoint, she can simply state that the GOP would not be so worked up even if someone had threatened one of its own for something the party believed in, e.g. if Justice Roberts was targeted for supporting the ACA. The GOP is exercised only when one of its articles of faith is threatened. To bolster her argument she can point out that the GOP lawmakers are not calling for legislative measures against people who publicly threaten to kill a sitting VP. Unlike the man accused of planning to kill Justice Kavanaugh, those Jan 6 rioters had means, motive AND opportunity to carry out their threat against Pence.

[iemanja]

52. Kavanaugh isn't the only one affected by this

So are the liberal justices.

[Jose Garcia]

57. It's a good thing that there aren't any right wing lunitics with guns

[calimary]

53. Excellent!

Turn that obstruction around on what the bad guys want! And jam it down their throats!

Oh, you want this? Well fuck the hell outta you.

Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it.

[keithbvadu2]

54. Moscow Mitch; Are children less important than those judges?

If the answer is 'YES', just say so.

[keithbvadu2]

56. Give Kav a gun! If it's good enough for teachers...

Give Kav a gun! If it's good enough for teachers...

[SunImp]

62. +1

[Autumn]

55. I hope she does. Fuck those people.

[LudwigPastorius]

59. This will be another "defund the police".

[usonian]

60. Kav has the "right" to defend himself, just like EVERY OTHER AMERICAN.

Pair this with gun control, voting rights, and reproductive rights, and

LET THE RWN'S VOTE IT DOWN.

F the "it will look bad" talk.
That's exactly what the RW's want. Paint the dems into a corner.

DON'T COMPROMISE WITH PSYCHOPATHS.
Box them in and like Kavvy,

GET THEM BEHIND A STEEL DOOR, and
BOLT IT

FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Safe for everyone.

[ripcord]

63. Wait until the ads

"Democrats didn't get their way on several Supreme Court decisions so after Justice Kavanaungh was threatened by an assassin they refused to provide protection for them in the hopes that certain Justices who didn't support their positions would be assassinated."

[randr]

65. Seal all of his door except for one

Give him a gun and call it done.

[Spazito]

69. *LOCKING*

Host consensus is this OP doesn't meet the criteria in the SOP for this forum:

Important news of national interest only.

This would be fine in General Discussion.