>Just stop posting about assassinating people.
Again you are implying that I am promoting assassination. That is slanderous. I never have done that. All I have done is to say that there are millions of people in the US and some of them are going to pissed off when one (or 6) people decide they no longer have a constitutional right to privacy. Some are going to be pissed off enough to go to protests every day. A few might even be unhinged and pissed off enough to do something criminal. Trump certainly found about a thousand who were ready to assassinate the Vice President. So I think 1000 out of 330 million is a good estimate of the number of potential assassins.
My actual point is that judges (especially Supreme Court justices) really need to think about how their rulings will affect people. Here is a Slate article that supports that opinion:
Amy Coney Barrett is in over her HeadFrom Day One, Barrett has approached this job as an academic. She treats cases like intriguing thought experiments rather than disputes between real people with life-and-death consequences. Her worst questions, like the “safe haven” disaster, sound like a parlor game. It’s easy to envision Barrett probing a student with such a question in an effort to test the strength of their argument. At oral arguments, though, it sounded like a callous minimization of the devastating burdens imposed by pregnancy.
