Woman could face jail time for laughing at Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: wheresthebody

Her right infringed on anothers right.

Who is right?

Two wrongs don't make a right....however two rights definitely make a wrong....

Three rights, makes a left.



If it was shown that she infringed upon another persons right, then she is in the wrong.

Technically it would only take one person who isn't a public servant to be disturbed for disorderly conduct to apply. I was always told as a police officer, you could not press disorderly conduct charges cause you are paid to deal with unruly people....Elected officials in an official proceeding is a little different.

Time and place....

QFE / QFT...

Same here...

Just remove her from the room. It's not that difficult.

You vill show respect for the rulers are it will be forced from you!! They may as well get the camps up and running because with racist aholes like Sessions and idiots like Trump running this nation people are going to have a lot to laugh about.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not familiar with QFE/QFT....lol maybe I'm a little dense.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Just remove her from the room. It's not that difficult.

Well remove her they obviously did...

On top of disorderly conduct I would assume resisting arrest without violence.....just my .02

a reply to: GuidedKill

QFE = Quoted for Emphasis
QFT = Quoted for Truth


My bad.. sorry.

a reply to: buster2010

Why is showing respect to everyone else present in the room a bad thing?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Shesh guys I guess I should have looked more into this before posting.

With the backlash I'm getting I guess Ill just sit in the corner and eat humble pie.

Everybody else back to daily business of arguing as usual On ATS.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Just remove her from the room. It's not that difficult.

They did. You still can't disrupt them.

originally posted by: SolAquarius
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Shesh guys I guess I should have looked more into this before posting.

With the backlash I'm getting I guess Ill just sit in the corner and eat humble pie.

Everybody else back to daily business of arguing as usual On ATS.

It's fine It's one of those things where on the surface it seems one way, but the more you look into it the more you realize this is something that can not be allowed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well it's a lesson for me to look at the details of a story before I run my digital mouth off by posting something out of ignorance.

I'm pretty passionate about the freedom to speak and the first amendment so I posted in impulse before looking at the finer details of the situation.

Just another example of leftist progressives thinking that laws don't apply to them.

a reply to: SolAquarius

I am too actually, so I can understand.

I just want to clarify that I don't necessarily think she was in the right to cause a disruption, or that she should go without any kind of retribution for her actions, it's the idea of a prison sentence specifically that I find so bewildering.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: roadgravel
Just remove her from the room. It's not that difficult.

They did. You still can't disrupt them.

It is what they want, to determine which words to who define disorderly.

Hey Congress, try doing your job serving the citizens of your district. Maybe Congress needs some jail time to "get it".
Throw in working 1/3 of a year means they should also get 1/3 the pay.

Given the issues that the US faces today, this should be so far down the To Do list that it won't even be considered until 2079. Grow up Jeff and Co.

a reply to: roadgravel

This most certainly fits the bill. Being free does not mean being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, with no regard for anyone else, with no consequences.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Given the issues that the US faces today, this should be so far down the To Do list that it won't even be considered until 2079. Grow up Jeff and Co.

Can you imagine if she had said 'cock-holster'? Does that state have a death penalty?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: SolAquarius

You do realize if a person had an outburst like that in any courtroom in America, they'd be slapped with contempt of court charges and jailed, right? The courtroom (which is effectively what the confirmation hearing is legally considered) has always had a "modified" set of civil rights within it's doors.

Right.

The title of this is click bait at best. I saw this earlier and the story debunked the headline within minutes.

You simply don't do that in a court room, lol.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: roadgravel

This most certainly fits the bill. Being free does not mean being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, with no regard for anyone else, with no consequences.

Just another step toward silencing voices against the government. It's coming so be happy.