The US Supreme Court and its decisions

Xaaron

Member
Citizen
As I'm sure you know, what you're describing is tribalism. There ARE legally recognizable differences between Trump and McKesson's actions, but you openly don't care. Your stated philosophy is people you agree with should be allowed to break the law, and people whose cause you oppose should be punished. Donald Trump and the Republicans agree with you. I do not.

Donald Trump is a despicable human being with horrible intentions who refuses to play by the rules. You're willing to break the rules too in order to stop his intentions. I believe his intentions would be stopped if the rules were enforced appropriately. I suspect that debate will go unsolved long after we're both dead.
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
The ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly. The same way abortion restrictions do. Doctor’s aren’t sure where the line is so they just don’t do anything for fear of prosecution. This ruling assures the same thing with protests.

As for the difference between that and what Trump did. There are several, foremost among them is the fact Trump had legal authority to stop it (calling in the National Guard) yet did not. McKesson did not.
 

Xaaron

Member
Citizen
I would distinguish that the media coverage of the ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, not the ruling itself. That Vox article makes it sound like states have passed new, anti-protest laws in light of BLM to quash future dissent, but that isn't true. Yes, headlines like "Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest" or "It is no longer safe to organize a protest in..." are terrifying, but...wrong.

Again, this man has not been convicted of anything. No court has made any findings on the merits of the case. The law already on the books and ratified by the Supreme Court in 1982 states that this man could face liability, if he encouraged violent or unlawful activity during the protest he organized. The officer who brought the suit has been allowed the opportunity to prove the organizer is liable under the existing, 40 year old precedent.

Admittedly, I had to leave the news article, go read the original court documents, and apply my experience as an attorney to uncover that information. But I think that condemns the journalism here, not the courts, don't you?
 
PrimalxConvoy

PrimalxConvoy

NOT a New Member.
Citizen
From my limited knowledge, the BLM organiser was not guilty of any wrong-doing or crimes and the priest was peaceful*. The difference, from what I've read, was that Trump seemed to encourage people to break the law, which resulted in deaths/bodily harm, whereas the BLM A activist helped to organise a legal protest that resulted in the injury of a police officer by an as-yet unidentified assailant, presumed to be linked to the protestors.


* https://www.vox.com/2022/4/2/230046...ture-deray-mckesson-doe-protest-supreme-court
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
There's also a world of difference between a handful of people trying and failing to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, and the entire crowd of literally thousands of people all actively trying to break down the doors to the Capitol and then pouring into the building once they succeed. If a protest over a good cause ever somehow managed to get that violent, you can bet that the powers that be on both sides of the aisle would be united in condemning it and trying to bring those involved to justice, and that they wouldn't need these draconian new laws to do it.
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:
Goddamn, they're actually doing it: they're actually normalizing Trump's belief that he's above the law. By talking about a "middle ground" as if that's reasonable, they're normalizing it.

Instead of flatly denying that he's above the law, they're seriously asking how FAR above the law he should be. And they're seriously asking stupid questions like "what's to stop a president from vindictively prosecuting his predecessor", as if the solution to that problem is not already known: DON'T COMMIT CRIMES.

The rule of law in America is dead.
Click to expand...
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
And we're normalizing their normalizing by continuing to pretend any part of our current government is actually legitimate and that all we need to do is continue participating in The System to fix it.

A country that owes its entire existence to a bloody revolution, and a document written by a man who once believed such revolutions should reoccur once a generation, has become so complacent in the status quo that they will not actually take up arms against a tyrant until he is already at their door with a warrant for their extermination.

We're pathetic, and we deserve what's coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom