A Florida man has pleaded guilty in connection with threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice.

The guilty plea from 43-year-old Neal Brij Sidhwaney of Fernandina Beach stemmed from a call he made to a Supreme Court justice in July, the Justice Department said in a news release Monday.

He faces up to five years in federal prison on one count of transmitting an interstate threat. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Prosecutors said that Sidhwaney identified himself by name in an expletive-infused voicemail and repeatedly threatened to kill the Supreme Court justice, who is not named in court documents.

Sidhwaney warned that if the justice alerted deputy U.S. Marshals, he would talk to them and “come kill you anyway,” according to court documents, which did not indicate what prompted Sidhwaney to make the threat.

  • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    On one hand, you’re absolutely correct. On the other, our founding fathers were very clearly A-OK with murder of “tyrants”…

    If the Supreme Court is willing to let women die in hospital parking lots because they don’t like a modern interpretation of the due process clause, and if they’re willing to inexorably beholden us to cultural norms from multiple centuries ago and also allow politicians to systematically eliminate our ability to influence the political process in any meaningful way, then they’ve made very clear themselves that a certain amount of death is inevitable and acceptable. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before desperate citizens followed that train of thought through to its logical conclusion.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      our founding fathers were very clearly A-OK with murder of “tyrants”

      You’d be right to think that, what with the whole “Revolutionary War” thing, but it’s interesting in that the whole reason we have impeachment is because of Benjamin Franklin’s opposition to assassination:

      https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173296

      “What was the practice before in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination in which he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."

      Madison followed:

      “It is indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service is not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thomas Jefferson: “What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      The system is constantly changing. We have the power and tools to effect change, despite the recent backsliding. SCOTUS is corrupt, yes, but we should be trying to change it, not making fucking deranged phone calls threatening people’s lives

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t disagree. I also think there are many women across the country whose lives are literally at risk this very moment who might not take much solace in the incremental pace of change. I’m not excusing violence, I’m simply explaining it. It’s wrong, but so is a lot of the bullshit SCOTUS is currently doing, so to many people the idea of “right” and “wrong” simply doesn’t compute the same way as it does with you and me.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This comment was removed out of an abundance of caution, while I brought it to the other moderators for their thoughts. After a discussion, I agree that I acted in haste, and I truly am sorry.