Neal Brij Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on one count of transmitting an interstate threat. The Supreme Court justice was not named in court documents.

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.

  • naught
    34·
    11 months ago

    Ah yes Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas. They will surely be remembered amongst the likes of Hitler. How many lives have you cost vs saved? Can you possibly know? Should I call in death threats to anyone I personally judge to have a negative effect on the world? Where do you draw the line? WHO gets to draw the line?

    This is insanity

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      31·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think we’re there yet either but at the same time, if we were to get to that point, most people (including myself probably) would not recognize it without some painful hindsight. Don’t be like the frog that doesn’t notice the water approaching boiling point.

      Besides, I’m not comparing our SC to murderous dictators of the past. I’m just refuting your assertion that threats and/or force are never the right option. When you follow the “what ifs” to their extremes it seems obvious that pacifism is not a universal good.

      • naught
        23·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s extremely hard to justify violence other than in very clear cases of absolute self-preservation. I think the system needs to change and that the SC is anti-democratic. However, we are excusing/advocating for terrorism here. The aim is a policy change through violence or the threat thereof.

        Fair enough - I figured you were drawing comparisons. Regardless in this case, I say, no matter which Justice this maniac was threatening, his actions are wrong. Period.

        It’s disheartening to read so many rabid comments from people who I otherwise probably agree with on most things. I usually see that kind of bloodthirstiness from a different kind of person.