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.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    This guy would be advocating against killing Hitler in 1943 because he’s a “public servant”.

    • naught
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Insane that you could even draw a slight comparison. Among other things I am a fucking anti-racist, anti-fascist, leftist. What an idiotic thing to say to me.

      The second we live in a fascist dictatorship feel free to go all operation Valkyrie on our glorious leader Brett Kavanaugh but until then you’re nothing but a keyboard warrior defending some psycho making death threat phone calls.

        • naught
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Insane that I’m not calling for the death of public officials and defending calling in death threats? Are you serious?

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Back to my original comment showing the fault in your logic - you would have defended Hitler because he was a public official? Are you serious?

            Just because someone is a public official, that doesn’t make them some sort of angel who would never cause massive damage to everyone else because of their own fucked up and greedy desires.

            • naught
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              You are comparing apples to oranges. You did the typical internet fallacy of comparing everything to Hitler. Brett Kavanaugh and his associates have yet to suggest we round up our Jewish friends and execute them en masse, so please tell me of the parallels.

              You are making a false equivalence to bolster your trite nazi analogy. You pretend like I treat Hitler the same way I’d treat a senator or supreme court justice. It’s false on its face.

              • alienanimals@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                That’s Godwin’s law. It’s not a fallacy, but good try.

                Your logic was that it’s never acceptable for a public servant to be threatened. I provided you with an example that showed your logic was faulty. You’re unable to admit to your fault. You might want to re-examine your logic and look inward to see why you can’t see when you’re wrong.

                Anyway, that’s all the time I’m going to spend today to educate you. You’ll probably just end up with the same mindset, “Hurr durr I’m always right!”

                • naught
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I said nothing about specific fallacies, only that your argument is fallacious and you are appealing to the classic Hitler boogeyman. If you want specifics, you’re currently using a straw man. The situation in Nazi Germany is incomparable to the present day United States. You are completely ignoring all of the context surrounding Hitler, particularly the fact that he wasn’t just a “public servant” so much as he was a fascist dictator. The fact that he advocated for the eradication of an entire people. If a justice was a fascist dictator then I would absolutely support their timely death.

                  I engaged here specifically to keep an open mind and to challenge what I think. On this particular issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the unwell individual making death threats to SCOTUS was justified. My point was and is that the actions this person took were wrong and unethical. I mean, this is further bolstered by the fact that the man clearly had a psychotic break. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?:

                  • The death threat phone calls were justified and morally correct
                  • Future death threats are justified
                  • Future political violence in our current system is justified