U.S. District Judge James Robart issued an order Friday night that blocked a Seattle law prohibiting police from using pepper spray and other anti-riot weapons. While described by the court as “very temporary,” it is also very dubious from a constitutional standpoint. I do not see the authority of a federal judge to stop the City of Seattle from determining what gear and devices may be used by its own officers, particularly in response to the federal government objecting to the state policy. The court in my view does not have the authority to make such a policy decision, even on a “very temporary” basis. Update: A different federal judge issued a more credible ruling in rejecting the demand of the Oregon Attorney General to put limits on the federal officers. The Oregon Attorney General’s filing was long on rhetoric and short on the law.
The Seattle City Council passed the new law unanimously last month and it was denounced by many as putting its own officers at greater risk. Many Seattle officers have already been injured by rioters.
That however is a policy judgment to be made by elected officials, not an unelected federal judge. Moreover, the objection by the Justice Department on how the city outfits and directs own police is an intrusion into local and state policy decision making.
Even when I disagree with judicial decisions, I usually have some idea of the legal basis for the claim of authority or the ruling of the court. I honestly do not have a clue on Judge Robart’s rationale. He just told a city that it could not reject the use of certain forms of nonlethal force and could not stipulate how its officers respond to mass protests.
This would be less controversial if the court found that city laws or policies were unconstitutional in furthering abusive arrests or practices. This was not a policy leading to unlawful arrests or the denial of constitutional rights. It was not a contractual dispute or the violation of an enforceable agreement with the federal government. This was meant as a protection for citizens in mass demonstrations. I actually disagree with the policy but I am not a Seattle City Council member. Neither is Judge Robart.
Judge Robart seemed rather casual on the basis for his order. He said he wanted to have the federal and city government engage in productive discussions. According to the Times, he added “I urge you all to use it as an occasion to try to find out where it is we are and where it is we’re going. I can’t tell you today if blast balls are a good idea or a bad idea, but I know that sometime a long time ago I approved them.”
Once again, it really does not matter if the court believes that blast balls are “a good idea.” They are widely used non-lethal devices. As I discussed in my recent testimony in Congress on the controversy surrounding the protests in Lafayette Park, they have been limited by courts in their use to protect first amendment activities and excessive use of force.
Again, I fail to see that as a basis for enjoining a city on a discretionary decision over the proper use of force in mass demonstration cases.
However temporary this order may be, it cannot be temporary enough.
Just use cold water — . dropped from a fire suppression tanker plane.
I think once would be enough.
Perhaps get the water at the input to a water treatment plant.
Disarm the police or fire them and you can expect citizens to take over enforcement. And when it hurts, really hurts, will the hoodlums call the police for protection? They ain’t coming. Rules of engagement: say nothing; give no warnings; leave no ‘protestor’ uninjured.
It’s another fine mess the Left is getting us into.
Let the police be police.
The judicial branch has been in full “overreach” mode for decades and decades – it also incorporates strategic employment of an “underreach” mode by declining to hear cases in order to achieve its political goals. The Constitution provides impeachment for just such judicial branch corruption, criminality and unconstitutionality. Congress fails to impeach judges and justices for their legal breaches because it is in full agreement with the political goals – the ultimate imposition of the principles of communism. There is no, or very little, objective jurisprudence.
The problem, then, is the vote. The American Founders established a severely-restricted-vote republic and did not allow one man, one vote democracy. Never were the “poor,” foreigners or women intended to vote. Representative governance begins at home with the husband/father’s vote representing the family (the irrational communists’ “post-family” conjuring has resulted in the vanishing of America and Americans through a fertility rate in a “death spiral” – women are men and insufficient numbers of babies are made – the population is imported, something unheard of in China, Switzerland, Japan, Russia, Kuwait, Austria, etc.). The vote was severely restricted to retain its coherence and import which are long gone. The 1788 election of George Washington enjoyed an 11.6% turnout, by design. The judicial branch must be put back on its reservation; completely blocked from political participation and impeached, convicted and severely penalized for its treasonous usurpation. Any Congress which fails in that effort is corrupt – thank you, Nancy Pelosi.
___________
“…men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Hey George, I remind you that until the beginning of the year 2019, for the previous two years the Congress and the Presidency were both controlled completely by Republicans. They could have impeached all the judges they wanted during that time but did not. Thus in order for the objective of imposing the principles of communism to be the plan of Congress Republicans must also be a part of that conspiracy.
Well, duh! Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have abrogated the Constitution and imposed the principles of communism. The only way out is a total reset as was accomplished by the American Founders in 1776. This time, severe vote restrictions shall be codified. If parasites vote, the host is terminated. The borders and budgets have been breached. The inmates have taken over the asylum. This in not going to end well. America has been spent into indigence, which the restricted vote and conservative principles of the Constitution were designed to preclude. The band is playing on as the American Titanic sinks in the Bolshevik Sea.
“for the previous two years the Congress and the . . . were both controlled completely by Republicans”. Controlled in this case is a convenient term used by the lefties to imply the Republicans could pass any legislation they wanted. THAT IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT! As a famous philosopher would say “That is fake news”. To control the senate, the Republicans would need sixty (60) votes. The last time that happened was with obama in his first two years (not germane to this, just thought I would throw it in). Anything else?
Good move. Now the serious Constitutional Citizens can get on with the job without the anti USA temporary group hiding behind the clock of play pretend when we all know they are one form of the other of socialist trying to hijack our Constitutional Republic.
Test.
In the state of Washington, in order to convict someone of reckless endangerment the following things need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
To convict the defendant of the crime of reckless endangerment, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about(date), the defendant acted recklessly;
(2) That such reckless conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; and
(3) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington] [City of ] [County of ].
How about we arrest the mayor of Seattle?
MofoKnows – well, the mayor sure did put his support team at risk. He also gave weight to the rioters.
Turley–“I honestly do not have a clue on Judge Robart’s rationale.”
****
Maybe he lives on Capitol Hill in or near the CHAZ site. That would make me invent new jurisdiction.
There is a federal court consent decree and memorandum of understanding in Seattle that appears to have been the basis for DOJ intervention and court’s order. DOJ argued that restricting non-lethal weapons could lead to greater use of force. This may still be bad decision, but the consent decree is the basis for federal jurisdiction so should be mentioned as part of analysis.
Good call. The left [Holder – Obama] wanted federal involvement in local police matters and now they have it. So many of the torpedoes they put in the water circle back on them.
Seattle was one of the very first cities to pop to attention and salute Eric Holder’s police-crippling crusade. Which is how Federal Judge Robart got into the driver’s seat in Seattle policing, to whom the Mayor and Chief of Police must kowtow before they regain control of law enforcement. Last night’s temporary restraining order was the first act by him which has NOT treated law enforcement as a plague to be eliminated.
This is correct
to the point, this fed judge , needs a lesson the mob should go to his house and burn it, see how he reacts then!!
where do you live?
another nutter heard from
It’s a court order. We have seen many court orders directed against the President that were dismissed by higher courts so those on the left that are complaining about the order have to remember when they supported that type of order. Too much hypocricy on the left. The likely result of ending the use of pepper spray is more people injured both citizens and police. Not good but that is typical of the left that doesn’t care about lives..
I personally don’t see the order as appropriate though I think the insurrection Act is.
I totally agree… 50+ nights of rioting and concerted attacks on property and federal buildings, stores and people’s civic spaces. This is a leftist insurrection / neo-Marxist revolution. It is time to get serious about putting it down with (commensurately) as much force is required to restore civil order. Ordinary citizens and police officers (also ordinary citizens) continue to get injured because there is not a proper National Guard-level response needed to what is a serious revolution threat in the streets. Far fewer need get hurt if an overwhelming display of power is demonstrated. That was Tom Cotton’s point in his much-maligned op-ed. What the left either psychologically is incapable of understanding — or else in bad faith refuses to understand — is that “defending civilization in depth” requires an overweening display of the latent threat that the state’s power of violence (its monopoly on violence) stands at the ready if the revolutionaries push things too far — and that bourgeois public order, the very lifeblood of civilization, depends upon this latent threat of violence to sustain the thin veneer of civilization against the chaos of Nature and History.
AFTEr the thug burn down federal courthouses and churches the citizens of these dumb towns may get some cents.
They will never get any sense.
The state has abrogated its rights to protect its citizens by telling the police to not enforce the law.
Like in Denver when Michelle Malkin was injured by ANTIFA / BLM
SLyons – exactly
https://www.creators.com/read/michelle-malkin
malkin is a really brave and intelligent person. she is a true leader of men
Paul Schulte: The mayor and the city council did not tell police not to enforce the laws. They simply told them that they could not use one particular method to enforce the laws. Your exaggerated claim is a distortion that constitutes a lie.
peltonrandy – the Portland Police are standing down from helping the Feds. The people of Seattle were told that they were on their own, by the po-po.
Likely no federal judges decision would have been called for if the local authorities stopped the 57 days of mayhem.
The policing of a group of people, by that group of people, with a ‘well regulated militia’ or police force is guaranteed in the Constitution. The second amendment gave the right of the people to police and protect themselves at the local level(s) and not be reliant upon or subjugated by an external power, be it a colonial or central government.
This judge’s interference is part of a package being put together by Trump to shoehorn his ‘sending in the troops’. One of the core strengths of the US system of government is the rights of the local governments versus the central governments. It also presents one of the core weaknesses. For political reasons and/or out of pure incompetence, Trump stood back from intervening on a federal level when dealing with the Covid-19 virus and thousands have died as a result. Now, Trump is putting together an argument to intervene in an established area, law enforcement. “I just make stuff up.” Donald Trump.
There is a history of U.S. presidents sending in troops or federal law enforcement to restore order — or to enforce federal law against the local will — long preceding Trump. Certainly protecting federal buildings legally licenses federal officers to use force in their defense. There is no sense that the mayor of Portland would currently welcome a Second Amendment “well regulated militia” to help restore order to the rioting streets that been in chaotic disaary for 50+ nights now — even though yes there is a constitutional argument for such a citizen army helping out. Indeed, most probably, the mayor of Portland would order his police to combat any such militia that showed up to protect storefronts from having their windows shattered, buildings set on fire, etc…
John
You might have misunderstood. The ‘well regulated militia’ is the local police force. The framers of the Constitution were focused on the rights of a village, town, or settlement to be able to form a militia to protect themselves, something that was left to the central government under the British. This is in the spirit of State’s Rights or local governance. That Washington can send in the troops is contentious; especially when not coordinating with the locals. Typically the local government, when overwhelmed, will ask for assistance; or when the local government refuses a federal mandate such as desegregating schools, is given federal troops of some sort to iron things out. In the case of Portland, the protection of federal buildings was a flimsy reason. In fact the federal troops roamed the city and randomly poached suspects. They weren’t asked to come. They went beyond their argument. They were, in fact, a political gesture, much like Trump stating that those who wear masks are making a political gesture against him, or wearing masks is patriotic. If Trump was so concerned for the well being of Americans why isn’t he funding and masterminding a comprehensive and strategic testing, tracing, and isolating program. Before kids go back to school and while they are going and coming, on a regular basis if they are tested then the only ones in the schools will be those without the virus. And so on. Trump is a failure, and dangerous.
Sir, with due respect, your argument is incoherent on its face.
The whole point of the federal troops deployed to ensure African-American children had equal access to public schools in the South was “equal protection under the law”. One can easily make the case that in Portland a right-wing mob would not be met with this kind of official deference for 50+ days on end, and that conservative rioters would not be able to untrammeled burn blocks, break glass, night after night, in a right-wing insurrection. The federal power is likely justified in a broader context than it’s being used under the equal protection principle.
IF you are going to hold the feds should not join the fray, then by equal protection it still follows that the mayor and police should ALSO permit a right-wing militia of similar violence and chaos to enter the same area. IF you hold that freedom of speech only holds with regard to “time, manner, and place” and the right-wing group would not have the right to protest in the same exact area — then again there is an equal protection issue because the left-wing mob has been allowed to organically determine “time, manner, and place” on the fly.
You are awfully insouciant here “the protection of federal buildings was a flimsy reason”. What exactly in your mind would constitute a non-flimsy reason? The execution of federal agents? (We’re not that far…) You repeat this propaganda that the feds are arresting mainly innocent people as opposed to observing by Occam’s razor after 50+ nights of unchallenged leftist Marxist violent revolution in the streets — described ceaselessly by our media as “mostly peaceful protests” — that it’s far more likely the media is lying again then that a list of innocents is being arrested without probable cause. At any rate, they will soon have their lawyers and be entitled to the full panoply of citizen rights that they have under the Constitution.
The reality is we’re in uncharted waters as the mayor has ordered the police to stand down and not to enforce existing law against a revolution in the streets — and there comes a point where this is no longer local executive prosecutorial discretion but a nullification of democracy and local order that invalidates the official police as being a “well-ordered militia”. If they suddenly decide en masse not to enforce a large group of statutes against a revolution whose ideology the mayor favors, there are all kinds of questions about governmental legitimacy and the right of the citizenry to help reestablish order themselves…
You are awfully insouciant here “the protection of federal buildings was a flimsy reason”. What exactly in your mind would constitute a non-flimsy reason?
Someone’s got a thesaurus.
A non-flimsy reason would be just what happened when the federal government decreed schools should be integrated and the local police refused to abide by that federal law by protecting students. The pretext was to protect federal buildings but the protection of these buildings falls under local jurisdiction. Also, the fed troops were primarily roaming the backstreets accosting individuals-arresting, detaining, without charge-who were not a part of the protests. The primary reason for the fed incursion was Trump making a ‘law and order’ gesture. He did so for his own political gain and without any sort of permission or joint venture of the locals. If one were to follow the arguments of the NRA and the gun nuts, the so called grass roots vigilantes should have been out there doing battle with the feds, aliens from outer space, NATO troops; all wrapped up in tinfoil so they can’t be monitored.
Portland and Seattle are handling it. They are open to criticism. However, unless they request assistance by the federal government or unless they are working against the law, this ends up being an infringement on the rights of a state and local jurisdiction.
“The pretext was to protect federal buildings but the protection of these buildings falls under local jurisdiction.”
I guess you are ignorant of the law. Destruction of a federal building is a federal crime.
“Also, the fed troops were primarily roaming the backstreets accosting individuals-arresting, detaining, without charge-who were not a part of the protests.”
Again you are ignorant of the law. An illegal alien doesn’t have to be part of a protest to be arrested. The FBI can investigate anyone who committed a federal crime whether or not they were part of the protests.
You have an awful understanding of the law along with what is or isn’t flimsy.
“Portland and Seattle are handling it. They are open to criticism.”
My god I’d hate to see what their “mishandling it” might look like. We’ve had 51 days of riots, fires, and insurrection.
50 nights of broken glass — and when the feds suddenly get involved, it’s suddenly Kristallnacht…
I think the operative question is for long and for how serious crimes can a local mayor suspend the rule of law before others get involved. Sanctuary cities are one thing. Saying a leftist mob — just because it’s Marxist — can burn down the city is not very progressive.
Again, were this a right-wing mob — the right-wing being an idee fixe of our media as the source of most political violence — there is no conceivable way it would be permitted to continue burning and looting for 51 straight days in ANY city in America. (There are sordid instances in America’s past of right-wing campaigns of violence, but nothing remotely like this in 2020 would be permitted).
Wide-scale leftist revolutionary violence is now clearly permitted in our major blue cities.
+10
issac – a “well-regulated militia” is not the police force. In Arizona it is all males between 18 and, I think, 50. All of them.
You illustrate my point on the second amendment for me, and also how it has been perverted over time to mean whatever is desirable. Arizona did not exist at the time the second amendment was penned.
“The second amendment gave the right of the people to police and protect themselves at the local level(s) and not be reliant upon or subjugated by an external power, be it a colonial or central government.”
That’s a double-edged sword, Issac.
Be careful what you wish for.
“For political reasons and/or out of pure incompetence, Trump stood back from intervening on a federal level when dealing with the Covid-19 virus and thousands have died as a result”
Trump RIGHTLY left the decisions on China Virus calls up to individual States because the Gov of the States are better suited to the needs and capabilities of those States services and could better tailor them to suit. There IS such a thing as States rights and it is clearly stated that authority not SPECIFICALLY granted to the Federal Government shall be retain the United States of America by the States. The response to the China Virus clearly fits this.
In the case of the riots and Anarchy the Constitution provides for the Federal Government (the President) to “protect and defend” the citizens of the USA against any incursion foreign or domestic. Where the States fail to act in protecting its own citizens the Federal Gov has both the right and the duty to act.
As for your claim Trump has been the cause of even one China Virus death, it is more than absurd it is a downright lie. He stopped travel from China when Fauci and the media all screeched it was unnecessary and called him a Xenophobe. He stopped travel from the EU and again was called a Xenophobe. He followed the advice of the countries allegedly leading epidemiologist and shut down the entire country in the name of helping the people and in doing so destroyed the most vibrant economy this Nation has ever seen.
Why not compare what this Admin did in response to the China Virus to how Obama handled the Sweine flu epidemic in 2009? I promise you it will not turn out well for you Obama fans.
For six weeks, Trump played the virus politically. While the rest of the world was dealing with it as it was and is, a deadly threat; Trump laughed it off, took the position of scientific authority, where he had none, and delayed supporting what some states were doing-dealing with it. Trump had and has the power to supply manpower and materials to offset any threat foreign or domestic. The virus was a foreign threat that became domestic. He allowed it to get the upper hand. You can BS all you want about closing China and the obligations of the states but the fact remains that Trump speaks out of both sides of his mouth. One minute wearing masks are statements against his Presidency by his enemies and the next wearing masks is patriotic. Statistics prove that Obama did far better with the swine flu. However, one cannot compare the Covid-19 virus with the Swine flu. But, one can look back to March and see the most incompetent, cowardly, self possessed, megalomaniac ever take the lives of at least half of the 140,000 dead so far, all by himself. That he closed off travel from China was nothing. The virus was already here and spreading. Trump is a killer because he refused to acknowledge the real danger for six weeks, while Spain, Italy, France, Great Britain were reeling from it. It was right there and he laughed it off. As President he had the power and opportunity to act and he sat on his political thumb. Oh, yeah, he offered advice like looking into injecting Lysol etc. Then he championed opening up the economy against Fauci’s recommendations. Trump’s advice is death itself. Incompetent, stupid, a blithering idiot, a liar extraordinaire, Trump is simply not Presidential material.
As for the economy. Trump juiced an already recovered and continuing to recover economy. Obama was responsible for the economic recovery. Obama took Unemployment from over 10% to near 4%. Trump rode it down another percent. Trump’s juicing of an already vibrant economy was heading in for a correction downward a year ago. Read the newspapers. Your support of Trump would be laughable if it were not so tragic and blitheringly idiotic.
“Obama was responsible for the economic recovery.”
What economic recovery? All Obama did was take the TBTF Bankster bailout baton from Bush and run with it exactly as Bush would have done at the expense of the ever shrinking middle class. That happened despite his multiple campaign promises to the contrary.
Since that occurred, the economy has been nothing but a flimsy paper Tiger held up by the Federal Reserve employing non-stop ZIRP and POMO to keep the stock market artificially inflated, while doing nothing for the real economy.
Obama was just an empty suit Wall Street shineboy with good NLP skills. As a result he was richly rewarded for his service.
Then Trump was elected. Like Obama, Trump had made multiple promises to bring back Glass-Steagall if he was elected. To his credit, he initially started that dialogue after he was elected. But the dead give away that it would never happen was his choice of Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. Who quickly killed any thoughts of any type of reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
So Obama chose Tim Geithner (Hank Paulson’s pick), and Trump chose Mnuchin. Both of whom are cut from the exact same bolt of Wall Street bootlicker cloth.
In short, you don’t know jackshit about economics or the economy, Isaac. Go play Monopoly, and let the adults deal with this.
“Again, I fail to see that as a basis for enjoining a city on a discretionary decision over the proper use of force in mass demonstration cases.”
Apparently you also “fail to see” the difference between a “demonstration” and a riot, Jonathan.
(I.E- “Many Seattle officers have already been injured by rioters”, from YOUR post). The officers weren’t injured by demonstrators, they were injured by antifa rioters who are coordinating their activities with the BLM leadership.
Once again, you display zero street sense, as well as a strange habit of ignoring what you wrote.
Totally agree. Turley’s right on the merits, but the practical effect is to permit this insurrection and revolution against public order to continue — and the question passes beyond the valence of mere crime. What of the constitutional rights of other citizens to peacefully use the town square and speak freely? Does Turley not grasp that their liberty is violated when the violent mob is allowed to rule the streets? Does he not understand there has been more than a “policy call” here but rather a suspension of the ordinary rule of law to allow for leftist insurrection and revolution? If Turley had his house downtown, you could expect a different take… At some point Turley’s obsession with the “First Amendment rights” of rioters conflicts with his support of the First Amendment for the other 99.999% of citizens who wish to peacefully assemble and speak without thugs attacking them in the middle of not just a crime spree but a separate jurisdiction now being set up…
It’s important to emphasize this is no longer just a “demonstration” nor even just “a riot” but rather a separate law-independent zone now being setup, open to jurisdictional challenges from federal troops the same if someone suddenly declared a 51st state. We are talking about the suspension of the rule of law to foment a new revolution — not just the non-enforcement of criminal statutes (on a totally selective basis). Here’s an argument for Turley: Equal protection. If these were right-wing rioters, tear gas would be de rigueur. But because they’re left-wing riots, tear gas is suddenly verboten (Notice how the policy is changed when the nature of the left-wing revolution becomes known). Under any fair application of equal protection, left-wing rioters should be put down using the same means as right-wing rioters — and not receive a special carve out. (See De Blasio, COVID crowd laws, for a similar unequal enforcement of the law.)
If anyone had their neighborhood invaded by rioters and looters while the local police were ordered to stand down by the Mayor, they would have an entirely different view of the difference between demonstrators and rioters.
That’s when it becomes the Wild Wild West, and all bets are off. Like many others, JT suffers from what I call ITS (Ivory Tower Syndrome).
But when they show up at your Ivory Tower with Molotov cocktails, and the police can’t help you, the paradigm shift is quite profound.
Where the City officials/Gov’t have abandon their responsibilities to protect the majority in favor of the minority, bunch fo Antifa/BLM/Woke/Anarchist, then the court is correct to step in and try to bring back the rule of law and protection of its citizens.
The Mayor of Seattle, the summer of love mayor that allowed the destruction, is a Left wing Nut Job, along with the City Council, whose members are radical. Yes, they were elected and the people of Seattle who elected them should suffer but, the rule of law and safety are important.
Seattle agreed to a consent decree in 2011 on the city’s “use of force” policy. This gave the federal courts the power to require approval of changes to the policy. DOJ filed for the TRO on that basis.
About Robart:
https://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513446463/who-is-judge-james-l-robart-and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order
Excerpt:
Who is the judge?
Robart has a history of saying what he thinks. He was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2003 and confirmed unanimously in a 99-0 vote by the Senate in June 2004.
Before that, he was a lawyer in private practice in Seattle. He has worked with at-risk youth in that city and, before becoming a judge, represented refugees from Southeast Asia.
Last year, Robart presided over a case alleging excessive force by Seattle police brought by the Obama administration’s Justice Department. During a hearing, he used FBI statistics to note that police use of deadly force in cities in the U.S. involved 41 percent of black people, despite their being only 20 percent of the population living in those cities.
Robart took a breath and said, “Black lives matter.” -NPR
I agree with Professor Turley. I also agree with the judge, but I don’t think the judge can get involved with municipal policy decisions. Besides that I am a believer in states rights. If the people of Seattle or Portland want to fall off the left side of the world that’s fine with me. You just won’t find me there.
“This [new law] was meant as a protection for citizens in mass demonstrations.” The constitutional basis of the federal judge’s authority is that law enforcement officers are citizens too, whose safety interests must be balanced against First Amendment rights of protesters. Municipalities cannot circumvent constitutional protections of certain citizens by “back door” pretextual posturings. A parallel to consider is the federal jurisdiction to enforce equal access to public education. States and municipalities claimed public interest in preventing civil unrest that integration would supposedly create. Now it is plainly observable that mobs and rioting are injurous to the public interest and even lethal to individual liberties. Also, it is readily evident that less lethal policing implements really are less lethal (which isn’t to say that they never result in fatalities). Would Seattle tell school kids, ‘You can attend public school if you like. But we’re not going to do anything to stop a mob from assaulting you on your way to school’?
Wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he were a repugthuglican judge.
You’re a simpleton.
Spoke the court jester. Let me guess you think the fascist trump is gawd sent and watch faux not the news.
Yep.
“Rhodes” is a sockpuppet. He’s one of the regulars…
A sockpuppet for who?
No simpleton. Unlike you, I am aware of how the elite uses the us versus them Dialectic to keep the chattel fighting among themselves while they continue to further enrich themselves and maintain control at We the People’s expense.
Useful idiots like you, on the left and the right, are the people that ensure that status quo.
The Hegelian Dialectic
https://politicalnewsreport.com/featured/the-hegelian-dialectic/
–
I’m rather stunned Johnathan Turley doesn’t recognize a legitimate state interest in providing stability against ongoing riots for 50+ nights now…
WHAT tools would Turley permit law enforcement? He makes a pro forma nod to local authority but fails to acknowledge the mayor is suspending the rule of law in his own city — leaving the civil liberties of ordinary citizens at the mercy of the mob. We are long past academic disputes here and I frankly welcome a little intervention from the judge if it will help steel spines and restore public order where the mayor and governor have failed. If there is no order, there is no liberty, and in this case the logic is overwhelming for the use of tear gas.
Remember, this ban is from the same people who would not see local or federal authorities use: mace, rubber bullets, batons or ANY OTHER DEFENSE against a rioting mob that is throwing projectiles at police, at federal buildings, lighting things on fire. This is about putting down an insurrection at this point, putting down a revolution, and just because it’s a leftist revolution doesn’t mean the rioting can be permitted to continue…
I’ll respect Turley on principle here that he has a point, but while statutory construction is not infinite, it’s not entirely clear the mayor hasn’t abdicated his own fiduciary responsibilities and that the government is failing to protect the first amendment rights of ordinary citizens to safely assemble in their public square — try that one on for a constitutional counter-argument. Where is the respect for the wishes of the silent 99.99% who never riot but want to walk down town freely — or speak freely — without having anarchists attack them if they dispute leftist nostrums?