“It went from judges getting pizzas, to then judges’ children getting pizzas, to then judges getting pizzas or their children getting pizzas that they didn’t order in my murdered son’s name,” Salas said. [...] “We know the first is, ‘I know where you live.’ Second is, ‘We know where your children live.’ And the third now is, ‘Do you want to end up like Judge Salas? Do you want to end up like Daniel?’”
this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
109 points (98.2% liked)
politics
23680 readers
4727 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Bad headline, WaPo. "Judges say" is pointless. There's simply no other explanation. Somebody is saying, "I know where you live."
If the judges themselves have come to that conclusion, then I think in this case it’s worth including in the headline. It’s not like “Chris Rock says unsolicited pizza deliveries to judges is meant to intimidate them.”
They are legal authorities, not just commentators, or journalists editorializing.
That's a stretch. Judges rule on matters to determine the limits of the law. If a judge says "It looks like rain today," that's not setting legal precedent for the weather to follow.
Magats are psychopathic non human cretins.
The important question is this: How effective has this been?
How many judges, whether or not they've been targeted by this tactic, have made rulings in favor of Trump that they would not have made otherwise, out of fear of retaliation by one of Trump's followers? How many judges going forward are going to rule in Trump's favor out of fear that they'll be targeted?
People have historically used these tactics because they fucking work. And we already know that senators have voted in Trump's favor on numerous issues up to and including his removal from office based on fear of retaliation from Trump's followers. We have seen officials ranging from local school boards right up to state officials either drop from races or resign from their positions due to intimidation and harassment tactics from hardline opponents.
We'll never be able to answer the question of how effective this has been since no judge will ever admit to ruling in Trump's favor because of these tactics. But the chances that this has happened, and possibly even happened quite often, is very, very real. How many laws are still on the books because the judge that was assigned the case was intimidated by Trump supporters? How many things has Trump gotten away with because prosecutors and judges feared retaliation or even civil unrest?
And since it's what will be viewed as "Democrat" judges that are targeted, I'd be willing to bet that the Senate isn't exactly going to put too much faith into investigating this until Aileen Cannon starts getting orders from Domino's.
until Aileen Cannon starts getting orders from Domino's.
Exactly: judges won't start standing up against Trump until they start getting more threatening pizzas from non-MAGAs than they do from MAGAs.
you sent me a pepperoni pizza? I’m a vegan, you terrorist!!!