It is appropriate for Supreme Court justices to be protected from the possibility of physical attacks, and the suggestion that a wildly unpopular ruling will come down - but hasn't yet - would increase that possibility.
Don't get me wrong: this Court is awful in a "one for the history books" way, and has made obviously terrible and politically motivated rulings. And they should be protected from physical attack.
2 Comments
Nougat@kbin.social · 1 pts · 3y
It is appropriate for Supreme Court justices to be protected from the possibility of physical attacks, and the suggestion that a wildly unpopular ruling will come down - but hasn't yet - would increase that possibility.
Don't get me wrong: this Court is awful in a "one for the history books" way, and has made obviously terrible and politically motivated rulings. And they should be protected from physical attack.
bezerker03@lemmy.fmhy.ml · 0 pts · 3y
I mean, idiots attacking them they should be protected.
Congress has decades to codify this in law but left it to a court ruling precedent so both sides could turn it into an election point.