Below is my column in the Hill on the decision in Thompson v. Trump, the case brought by Democratic members and Capitol police officers against President Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and others for injuries (physical or emotional) related to the January 6th riot. The lawsuits against three out of four of the speakers from the rally on that day were dismissed but the motion on behalf of former President Donald Trump was denied. He could well prevail on appeal and there remain unanswered questions over the free speech protections that should be accorded such speeches.
Here is the column:
A “one-of-a-kind case.” Judge Amit Mehta‘s description of the litigation against four principal speakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally may have been as much a prayer as a portrayal. As famed Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Hard cases make bad law” — and the litigation against President Trump and his associates is a hard case that just proved Holmes right.
In consolidated cases brought by Democratic members of Congress and Capitol Police officers, Judge Mehta ruled on motions to dismiss by the former president, his son Donald Jr., former Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), as well as several extremist groups like the Oath Keepers. The judge dismissed the claims of a violent conspiracy against Trump Jr. and Giuliani, and he invited Brooks to file a motion to dismiss on the same grounds. He rejected arguments that their speeches at the rally caused the subsequent rioting in the Capitol. Yet, while admitting that the case raised difficult constitutional questions, he declined to dismiss the claim against Trump.
The ruling will now allow a long-awaited appeal on core constitutional questions, including the protections for inflammatory speech.
Most analysts expected that groups like the Oath Keepers would likely remain in the lawsuit, given their active role in the rioting and the recent charges of seditious conspiracy filed against them. The most controversial parties were the speakers at the rally near the White House before the riot.
The judge’s 112-page opinion makes easy work of dismissing the claims against the other speakers. These speeches were reckless but constitutionally protected. Giuliani’s declaration — “Let’s have trial by combat” — has been cited by some critics as a clear incitement to an insurrection, but the judge found such arguments were implausible and that Giuliani’s words “were not likely” to cause a riot. He also found that Trump Jr.’s comments on the election were “protected speech,” and he rejected claims that Brooks urging Trump’s supporters to “start taking names and kicking ass” could be the basis for liability.
I previously wrote that the claims against these four Jan. 6 speakers might find “a sympathetic trial judge” but that “they will likely fail on appeal, even if they survive the trial level litigation.” All but one of those claims are now dismissed on the trial level. Moreover, Judge Mehta’s opinion seems to reinforce the view that Trump’s speech was protected, too.
The judge could well be reversed on the threshold question of immunity, raised by Trump, that presidents cannot be sued for speaking on matters of public interest. Mehta was honest in saying that “this is not an easy issue” and that “the alleged facts of this case are without precedent.” Yet, he offered a detailed explanation of why he believes such immunity should not extend to a speech contesting election results — the strongest portion of his decision. In so holding, Mehta is making new law — and some jurists on appeal, particularly on the Supreme Court, are likely to be concerned over the implications of such liability for a sitting president.
However, it is the free speech issue that is most concerning. My concern is not based on any agreement with Trump’s view of the election or Congress’s certification of it; I criticized his speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him; nevertheless, his remarks fall well short of the high standard set for criminal or civil liability for speech.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such liability despite the use of inflammatory or even violent words.
In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that even a Ku Klux Klan leader calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets because “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In a third case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one of its officials promised to break the necks of opponents.
Although Trump pumped up his Jan. 6 supporters with allegations of election fraud and calls to “fight like hell,” Judge Mehta acknowledged that Trump also told the crowd that “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” His comments were consistent with a protest in saying that “we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
In fairness to the court, it is merely saying that the case’s plaintiffs could possibly prove a conspiracy between Trump and some Jan. 6 groups. But he cites little support for such a conspiracy beyond facts like Trump’s earlier controversial statement in a debate that the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by.” The court’s careful, meticulous analysis on the earlier claims seems to break down over Trump’s status; it struggles to ignore the clear weight of prior case law and countervailing interpretations of Trump’s words.
Despite a lengthy, detailed discussion of issues like presidential immunity, Mehta becomes more curt and cursory over Trump’s constitutional claims. When Trump’s lawyers said his language was largely indistinguishable from that of many Democrats like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Mehta chided them for playing “a game of what-aboutism.”
That “what-aboutism,” however, is precisely the point. The selective imposition of liability for speech is the very thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
As rioting raged in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and nationwide in 2020, Congresswoman Waters went to Minnesota and told protesters there that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.” Others have used language very similar to Trump’s in declaring elections to be invalid (including Hillary Clinton calling Trump an “illegitimate president“) or urging supporters to “fight” or “battle” against Republicans; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) once said, “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”
All of those statements arguably were reckless but clearly protected speech.
Free speech demands bright lines. While this is a “one-of-a-kind case,” Trump’s comments were hardly unique. And Judge Mehta does not clearly establish why Giuliani’s “trial by combat” remark or Brooks’ “taking names and kicking ass” exhortation are not calls for imminent violence or lawlessness — but Trump’s “fight like hell” would be.
With three of the four speakers now dismissed from the case, only Trump remains. Along with him remains the most looming question: whether the Jan. 6 speech, which was central to his impeachment, was protected under the Constitution. If Trump prevails on appeal, he may claim a degree of vindication thanks to some of his fiercest opponents.
What the court dismisses as “a game of what-aboutism” is all about free speech.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
How many red lines must Russia cross before war with Russia is an excellent move? Until we are in a “Fortress America” situation? Why not nip this in the bud, preventing it from growing that far?
Why was it in America’s interest to liberate France, Germany, and Italy from the fascists, and the Philippines from the Japanese?
Now we may have to liberate Canada. Another day, same crap.
If we really supported Ukraine, we would prove it by being all-in for them, with thousands of soldiers there bombing and shelling the shitake out of the Russians. This is half-assed support.
Yeah, starting a war with Russia is an excellent move. /s
I’m afraid we may do just that. Hunter has a lot at stake there some say.
Putin to split Ukraine into four parts.
What will the sanctions be? Not enough, in his estimation.
The Canadian government just over our northern border is transforming into a fascist regime.
Hey look, PUTIN!
The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics declared independence in 2014 but are considered terrorist organizations by Ukraine. Putin has signed a decree recognizing these two separatist regions as independent entities, and he may now openly send troops and weapons to the pro-Russia separatists. He has also set up the possibility of a wider invasion of Ukraine if Kyiv doesn’t stand down in Donbas. He is escalating.
What will NATO countries do in response?
Who cares? Biden is wagging the dog so hard over in Ukraine so he can take the focus off the messes he’s creating right here in our own country. We have a controlled demolition happening in our own country right now. So Biden NEEDS a distraction. He is *manufacturing a crisis* in Ukraine so he can claim a bogus win. Look at me, your commander in chief who avoided a costly war with PUTIN!
Putin is creating a situation that all NATO countries, including the US, need to respond to.
If Putin can openly send troops and weapons to pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine without any response from NATO, he will do the same with separatists in other Eastern European countries, and China will do the same in Taiwan.
IDGAF about your personal opinion of Biden.
The USG created this situation.
Putin created this situation.
Because he knows Biden is a corrupt moron.
Yes he is. Why? Because Biden is a moron. Maybe Joe Biden’s crackhead son has some thoughts about Ukraine?
Jonathan: On this Presidents Day I think we should all extend our sympathies to Donald Trump. All the lawsuits he is facing are the least of his problems. Now that his accounting firm, Mazars USA, has pulled the plug, the Trumpster is faced with more dire financial difficulties. Legitimate banks won’t touch him. Probably not even Deutsche Bank that granted Trump many loans even when internal bank officials warned against the loans. Since Trump’s financials can no longer be “relied upon” the Dems are also piling on. They have asked the GSA to cancel Trump’s lease on his hotel in DC. If that happens that could jeopardize the deal to sell the property to CGI Merchant Group for the inflated price of $375 million. Troubles, troubles, troubles.
So where is Trump going to find money? The Saudis, the Russian oligarchs or narco-terrorists? I mean the latter have a lot of money to launder. They might all be in the running as Trump’s new loan officer. Ever the resourceful businessman Trump thinks he might have a solution. The Saudi’s want to start a new professional golf league to rival the PGA that has refused to use Trump’s golf resorts. Apparently, Trump is in discussions with the Saudi’s to host their tournaments at some of his golf resorts. Perfect fit. Trump has long been close to the Saudi authoritarian regime. He defended Crown Prince bin Salman even when the evidence showed the Crown Prince was responsible for the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump aligning his business with murderers? You betcha. Trump is desperate. There is only one problem. Neither Tiger Woods nor many other professional golfers want to leave the PGA. Troubles, troubles, troubles.
In Trudeau’s Canada, the money in your bank account is one ‘state emergency’ away from being the Government’s money. No due process needed.
Trudeau said he will only seize your bank accounts if you hold “unacceptable views” …so adjust your wrongthink accordingly.
But look over there! Ukraine! PUTIN!
I read somewhere that a lot of Canadian money is moving out to safer accounts, maybe Swiss, and to crypto. I don’t know if that is true but it would be of me if I lived there. Even a mattress is safer than leaving it where Herr Trudeau [or is it Comisar Trudeau?] can reach it.
Canadian banks are no longer safe depositories. It would have done less damage if ISIS had attacked one of them. How do you resuscitate a dead reputation for safety?
You’re out of your mind. Khashoggi wasn;t a WaPo columnist. He didn’t even speak English. He was a spy who got killed playing spy games.
You’re lying or ignorant.
It’s easy to find WaPo columns written by Khashoggi. Here’s an example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/jamal-khashoggi-what-the-arab-world-needs-most-is-free-expression/2018/10/17/adfc8c44-d21d-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html
Here’s another:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/09/18/saudi-arabia-wasnt-always-this-repressive-now-its-unbearable/
He was not a spy. He was a dissident murdered by order of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.
That’s stupid. You didn’t find any WaPo columns written by Khashoggi. You found some things that the WaPo said were written by Khashoggi.
He was a spy, and he was someone whom no sensible person gave a shit about.
Are you getting paid by MbS to post lies here?
Cassidy says:
“the question will be whether Ms. Pelosi KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that security at the Capitol was inadequate.”
Witch-hunt!
(I’m getting the hang of using Trumpist tactics. It surprisingly feels kinda good!)
Jonathan: It’s hard to predict what will happen to this case on appeal. The threshold question is whether a sitting president is immune from liability for actions taken arguably outside the course and scope of his employment–his “official duties”. Trump claims immunity for his statements and actions on Jan. 6. The evidence so far is pretty compelling that Trump wanted to overturn the 2020 election to stay in power. He wanted VP Pence to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote and when this didn’t happen he incited an insurrection by his supporters. Was this within his “official duties”? Judge Mehta ruled that Trump’s actions “…entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the President’s broad immunity are not present here”. Judge Mehta pointed out that Trump’s attempt to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote is not included in his official duties: “President Trump cites no constitutional provision or federal statute that grants or vests in the President…any power or duty with respect to the Certification of the Electoral College vote…”. The above quoted parts of Mehta’s decision you conveniently leave out.
You say “Free speech demands bright lines”. True and that’s why Judge Mehta dismissed the charges against Don Jr., Giuliani and Mo Brooks. When it comes to Trump his “official duties” don’t include inciting an insurrection to overturn a legitimate election. That is not within his duty to ensure the “laws are faithfully executed”. This is not a case of “free speech” but an attempt by Trump to suspend the Constitution. You obviously don’t see the difference.
So all of a sudden Dennis McIntyre is concerned about suspending the Constitution by Trump and yet he calls for the cancellation of free speech for those he doesn’t agree with. Where is the outrage from Dennis when a Democratic politician says that people are not being censored enough. What we get is huff and puff in one instance and silence in another. Dennis, our evaluation is based on the obvious. If just once you would admit that Hillary has also declared for the last five that the Trump election was not legitimate we might consider the veracity of your opinion. Until then we just take your opinion with a very small grain of salt.
Judge Mehta pointed out that Trump’s attempt to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote is not included in his official duties
Judge Mehta is a racist immigrant a–hole. Trump’s primary duty was to uphold the laws of the United States, which were flagrantly breached in the course of the election. Conceivably, his actual motivation was personal rather than Constitutional, but he did have a duty to prevent Biden from taking office by cheating.
William JD, in my opinion you need to visit a mental health counselor right away.
I just ignore the Nony Mice.
David, Probably a good idea. I usually do.
David B. Benson, “Nony Mice” very clever play on words. You must have picked it up from your conversations in the elementary school lunchroom. Hardy har har.
Pre-school song:
“Three nony mice,
three nony mice,
see how they run!
…”
C’mon everybody in the elementary school lunchroom join in with David B Benson’s three nony mice song. Giggle giggle giggle. Cleaver once in constant repetition becomes mundane.
Only those who can carry a tune and stay on key, please.
Kamala is dangerously stupid:
“Reporter: Will sanctions deter Putin?
Kamala Harris: “Within the context then of the fact that that window is still opening, although, open, although it is absolutely narrowing, but within the context of a diplomatic path still being open”
Actual quote”
Found on Jack Prosobeic’s Twitter.
The more the world sees of Biden and of Kamala the more vulnerable we look to our significant enemies.
Try to imagine either of these two leading the Allies in WWIi.
“We will fight on the…??? #$%…whatever. we shall never…???, you know…the thing…”
Never in the annals of this country have we owed so much disaster to a couple of idiots.
Young says:
“The more the world sees of Biden and of Kamala the more vulnerable we look to our significant enemies.”
What do you think the world thought of Trump making a moral equivalence between US actions and the authoritarian murderous regime of Putin when he said, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/index.html
I don’t recall Churchill ever making such a comparison. Do you?
JeffSilberman, maybe trump was thinking about our actions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe Trump thinks that America is not always innocent of wrong doing. In your little bubble with your friends you condemn these foreign wars but if Trump points out that we are not innocent on the world stage you fly into an outrage. Maybe you agree with our actions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. If so please let us know. Trump knew that if he was not able to admit that America has been flawed in its actions that he would have no influence with other nations. Trump just didn’t think that we should so easily wash our hands clean and he understood how we must look to other nations in our sanctimony. Just like the readers here view your sanctimony.
TiT wonders out loud:
“maybe trump was thinking about our actions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Had Obama made such a reprehensible moral equivalence among America and Russia, the Trumpists would not have impeached him, they would have lynched him just as they wanted to hang Mike Pence.
There is no equivalence. The US regime is far worse than Putin’s.
Ok. We know where you stand and with whom.
Yep. I stand with America, You stand for death.
You hate America if you think it is worse than Putin’s regime.
Trump didn’t’ put us on the brink of war as Biden has. The world needs leadership. Trump had it. Biden and the Dems have none, so they look to those that appear most authoritarian. Unfortunately, that elevates people like Xi, who gives strength to those with poor leadership skills. Trudeau is the first to come to mind.
The Democrats need to hurry up if they want to murder freedom. November is not that far away.
Good one, Diogenes!
Why doesn’t someone sue Pelosi for her negligence in not protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6?
Because Pelosi wasn’t responsible for protecting the Capitol on Jan 6th, and those who blame her are lying to you, Sam,
To be clear, communications between Ms. Pelosi and the House Sargeant at Arms are still under wraps. As the drama plays out, the question will be whether Ms. Pelosi KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that security at the Capitol was inadequate.
Chain of command.
From the bottom
Sargent at arms
Capital Architect.
Rotates between, Speaker of the House or Majority leader of the Senate. For Jan 6 it was the Speaker of the House
Pelosi was fully responsible for security of the Capitol
You must be reading the communist constitution.
“Because Pelosi wasn’t responsible for protecting the Capitol on Jan 6th . . .”
You need to rethink your understanding of the DC National Guard chain of command, and Pelosi’s role in*not* authorizing their deployment on Jan. 6. (And then ask yourself: Why is she hiding from that decision?)
The most violent people at the Capitol on January 6 were police officers.
Same is happening in Canada. It was peaceful with no violence until after Trudeau unleashed his jackboots in Ottaw. The lawlessness and violence came from Trudeau’s thugs.
It’s illegal to block roads in Canada. You seem to have trouble acknowledging that lawlessness on the truckers’ part.
All Trudy had to do was meet with them and lift the draconian, unscientific, unnecessary covid restrictions. Trudy works FOR the people, not the other way around.
Maybe because a lawyer knows that if they can’t cite a law that she broke, it’s a frivolous lawsuit and they’d be chastized by the judge and then have their case dismissed.
Not likely! The email communications between Ms. Pelosi and the Sergeant at Arms could be subject to subpoena, but the Dems do not seem inclined to make that happen.
Again: unless she broke some law — and you haven’t stated one — there is no basis for a suit.
What LAW are you alleging she broke?
You’re not a lawyer. Negligence doesn’t involve “a law”,
If you’re a lawyer, then you’re incompetent.
Sam asked “Why doesn’t someone sue Pelosi for her negligence in not protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6?,” and suing someone for negligence requires that they have broken a law. There are diverse laws that allow one to sue for some kinds of negligence (e.g., medical negligence), but neither you nor anyone else in this subthread has identified a law that would enable someone to sue Pelosi for negligence on Jan. 6.
It seems the double standard is very strong in this anonymous. What are some saying about Trump?
Negligence is a common law tort, It isn’t based on “laws”. Medical negligence is no exception. It is a common-law cause of action.
“What LAW are you alleging she broke?”
That’s not how it works in today’s world of infinitely malleable “law.” Today, you pick a person, then concoct a grounds for suing them. Goose meet gander.
If *you* believe that that’s how it works, then nothing is stopping *you* from suing her.
they can’t cite a law that she broke, it’s a frivolous lawsuit
Still waiting for Letitia James New York AG for a citation of code broken by President Trump I’ve heard her interviewed and the media pontificate, but never a named violation of law. But that whole, “need a crime” standard does not apply to Republican targets.
As I pointed out to you in a previous exchange:
a) She is pursuing a civil investigation, not a criminal investigation. Every f’g time you say you “need a crime,” you demonstrate your ignorance about this particular investigation.
b) She has specified relevant civil laws in her filings, such as this one — https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/memo-of-law-2022-01-18.pdf — which you easily could have found for yourself if you’d simply bothered to look. But you find it so much more convenient to “wait” and assume that it doesn’t exist.
Malfeasance maybe.
She has nothing but the power of her office to harrass with immunity.
Asset valuation for the purpose of securing loans is a a contract between 2 individuals.
Square footage of a resisdence is a matter of public record. The owner has no input.
Conservation leases are arrived at by a pre set formula. I’ve worked with NCRS
She claims his Brand valuation was too much. She would know more than President Trump about Brand valuaton.
There is literally nothing there.
I couldn’t care less what your personal opinion about it is. You complained for weeks that you hadn’t heard what laws are relevant. Now you know some of the relevant laws.
You’re welcome.
It looks like your link doesn’t answer the question asked by Iowan. What law did Trump or his organization break that causes the government to be involved? You are either able to answer or you are not. So far your batting 0% with no sign of improvement.
“Maybe because a lawyer knows . . .”
As Judge Mehta has just proven, cvil suits are given a wide berth.
Each of the civil suits that Mehta ruled on identifies specific laws that they allege Trump broke.
You claimed that Pelosi was “negligen[t] in not protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6,” but so far, neither you nor anyone else in this subthread has identified any law that you allege Pelosi broke.
The lawsuits allege laws that Trump obviously didn’t break. They were section 1985 lawsuits alleging interference with performance of a duty. But Congress has no duty in regard to what was happening on January 6.
It’s rather baffling that you believe that Congress wasn’t performing a duty when it met on Jan. 6 to certify the Electoral College vote.
Dereliction of duty which some are trying to pin on Trump, but Trump asked for more protection.
Who sued Trump for dereliction of duty?
Who sued Pelosi for dereliction of duty? That is a rationale against Trump by many, probably by you as well.
Apparently you’re unable to follow the conversation that started with Sam’s question.
The conversation was followed until you asked a follow-up question. One doesn’t have to go to Sam’s question. All one has to do is look at your response to the answer to your question.
One of these days people in this country will realize Trump is one of the good guys, fighting the good fight to save our country from the likes of what just happened in Canada. Canada is no longer a free democracy. Canada is now ruled by a dictator. Justin Trudeau is by definition now in fact a dictator. And a ruthless one at that.
Wake up America.
Trump is not a good guy. Hopefully these law suits can proceed against him, so he’ll either have to testify under oath or plead the 5th.
Whatever one thinks about Trudeau, he is not “by definition now in fact a dictator.” This hyperbole doesn’t serve anyone’s well-being.
ATS-
Thank you for that contribution Herr Goebbels.
Hyperbole to denounce ‘hyperbole” is unusual.
YTS,
LOL that you’re too lazy to quote whatever you believe to be hyperbole on my part. Perhaps you’re confusing my opinion about Trump with 11:16 AM Anon’s false claim of fact about Trudeau.
Trudeau is now by definition, in fact, a dictator. Prove me wrong.
You’re the one who has to prove yourself right.
Not necessary. I know I’m right. You don’t know how wrong you are.
You’re an idiot who begs the question.
Said the idiot who still thinks fact-checkers check facts.
Deceit and dishonesty cover up the hyperbole.
ATS makes statements all the time that are meaningless. So far, the NY lawsuits haven’t demonstrated any merit and are political with situations created by the political opposition.
I am waiting for ATS to prove anything he says, but all he does is quote partial statements that are cherry-picked, leaving out the parts that contradict what he is saying. He demonstrates a lack of common decency or understanding of the law and business.
S. Meyer,
That sums ATS up nicely.
The chihuahua continues to run around people’s ankles, barking his little bark for attention.
Anonymous the Stupid keeps talking about a chihuahua which makes little sense the first time and less each subsequent time. He is demonstrating that he has nothing to say while at the same time insulting the intelligence of people on this blog.
Awww, Meyer objects to being identified as a chihuahua who runs around people’s ankles, barking its little bark, trying to get attention.
He simply barks his little bark some more.
Where did I object to your fantasies. Can you get nothing right, Anonymous the Stupid?
Trump is not a good guy
Exactly the same language the judge used when he said Trump had to sit to be deposed
“not a good guy” being the foundational bedrock of United States Judicial system
It’s clear you have not been paying attention to what is happening in Canada. Or here in the U.S. And it is your own ignorance that does not serve.
Why did President Biden just days ago declare the COVID-19 State of Emergency Act must be extended, and remain open-ended in duration?
Just as there was no “emergency” in Canada that justified Trudeau’s unconstitutional and undemocratic power grab, we do not have a covid “emergency” here in the United States. Yet Biden just extended a state of emergency. The virus is now ‘endemic’ and our CDC is conspiring in hiding covid data from the public. Why?
Rational minded people sense something is wrong. Everyone’s atenna should be up. None of this is about protecting public health, nor is it “following the science.”
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-extend-u-national-emergency-001639296.html
Speaking of hyperbole, for those of you who subscribe to “Above the Law”, Joe Patrice has an excellent post today on Turley’s feeble effort in a Fox News appearance with some bottle blondie to equate the Canadian trucker protest with the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Turley apparently forgot or never knew that MLK got arrested over 20 times, sometimes deliberately, to make a point. Sometimes the charges were for things like “loitering’. Turley made a fool of himself, so look for him to go on the attack against Joe Patrice and/or “Above the Law”. Joe also made a point about Turley embarrassing George Washington University by his steppin’ and fetchin’ for Fox.
So we have the beginning of a movement, we will have to wait to see if it fissiles or persists.
The People’s Convoy *Let Freedom Roll* is on it’s way to DC traveling from the left coast across the country arriving in early March to the Beltway around our nation’s Capitol. Gonna cause some ‘good trouble.’ Let’s see what old Brandon does.
They put up Nancy’s fences to keep American citizens out of their own Capitol, but the border is wide open for illegals to spew into the country unvaccinated. Who knows how many terrorists from other countries made it through. Joe and Nancy are too worried about their own citizens being angry with them, to worry about REAL terrorists coming here to destroy what’s left of America to destroy after the left got through with it.
“organizers noted they would not be entering “D.C. proper,” indicating they have no intention of protesting near the Capitol Building or White House. …organizers assured the logistics planning is being assisted by “retired military personnel and security experts… in order to ensure a 100% safe, lawful, and peaceful journey.””
As long as it’s lawful, there’s no reason for Biden or anyone else to do anything.
The freedom protests up north were peaceful and lawful until Trudeau claimed ’emergency’ power and sent in his gestapo.
Blocking roads isn’t lawful in Canada.
There was an emergency access lane in Ottawa.
“Blocking roads isn’t lawful in Canada.”
Neither was throwing tea into a harbor.
Does anyone in the country even know who Biden’s HHS secretary is in the midst of this Biden-declared-covid-emergency? Why is Secretary Becerra MIA? Not a word from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Isn’t that odd? What’s going on at HHS?
Naomi West, a creature of the Left, has said that Trudeau is a dictator.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/fall-canada-danger-us-dr-naomi-wolf
I am hesitant to accept her legal commentary, though she may be right, but she is right that Trudeau is now essentially a dictator. Unfortunately, he is no Cincinnatus.
Correct. She is raising the flag up the pole for a reason.
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-canada-the-danger-in?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
She can have whatever opinion she wants. So can you. But an opinion is distinct from a fact, and the comment I was responding to claimed it was a fact. It’s not a fact.
Trudeau can now have you arrested, your bank accounts frozen, your insurance cancelled, your property seized, NO COURT ORDER or WARRANT needed, IF YOU ARE PROTESTING legally and peacefully against him OR supporting the protestors legally, financially or otherwise — and I don’t know what YOU call this kind of power, but I’d say it is in FACT dictatorial.
JUST IN: The House of Commons has passed a motion to approve the extraordinary and temporary measures in the Emergencies
Canada has fallen. Canada is no longer a free democracy. Total silence from President Joe Biden. Beyond shameful.
And now the House of Commons adjourns for the next 7 days. Another week of extraordinary powers without accountability.
ATS,
I think Dr. Wolf knew she could have an opinion without the benefit of your imprimatur.
And, unlike you, she has a name as well as a doctorate.
I think Dr. Wolf would also recognize that the OP was a claim of fact and is false.
I have a doctorate, so she and I are actually similar that way.
It is a fact. And if your comments are any indication of your intelligence, we can all see how utterly useless a doctorate degree actually is today. You know, like Dr. Community College and her Ed.D.
I was thinking the same thing. Some schools are handing doctorates out like Blue Ribbons hung on pigs at county fairs.
But I am inspired to think of a new handle for it: Dr. ATS.
He has already demonstrated a doctorate of Stupidity.
You might have a doctorate, but you lack critical thinking skills. It is not the doctorate that is important. It is what is in your brain. Doctorates can be forgiving, for one can have a doctorate in a specific area and not know much of anything else. That is what you face.
He is by definition a dictator. Where do we find these idiots who do not know that a dictator is someone whose words become law? I.e., who dictates the law?
William JD, that is not the definition of dictator.
David,
I am not going to look it up but that actually sounds right. Dictator was a legal Roman office, not a tyranny, used for a limited time in emergencies. His words and acts were effectively law during his time in office, exceeding the authority of the two consuls and the Senate. Cincinnatus was the sterling example of a great dictator. He did his job, saved Rome, laid down his office and returned to his plow. Sulla was less admirable by a long shot, but even he ultimately quit and went home to party.
Dicta in law are comments of interest in a legal decision but not actually part of the holding. Then we have dictum, dictionary, etc. I think William has a point.
Young,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator
Not law, in my limited understanding of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
David,
It’s a tricky area, defining law. Ultimately it must come down to rules laid down by someone with the authority to make them and see them enforced. Are HOA rules law? I had this argument on a board. I think they are. If they are passed by procedures that make them enforceable in court then how do we distinguish them from city ordinances or state laws or administrative rules that we acknowledge as law? I am not sure we can. Are court decisions law? Yes, they are enforceable. Are a dictator’s orders law? So it would appear so long as he can bring the force of the state to ensure them. As we struggled over a difficult issue a friend once said, “One thing about learning law is that it increases your tolerance for ambiguity.” We both laughed because we needed a lot of that tolerance for the issue at hand.
Of course it is, you moron.
William JD, this blog of Jonathan Turley’s has a civility code. I recommend that you abide by it.
“Trudeau, he is not ‘by definition now in fact a dictator.’”
When you assume dictatorial powers, you are a dictator.
And when you apologize for a dictator, you are a useful idiot.
Anonymous says:
“One of these days people in this country will realize Trump is one of the good guys,”
Tell that to Turley who called Trump a “carnival snake charmer.” Not exactly how one would describe a *good guy.*
Don’t take my word for it. Read it and weep:
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
I’ll save you the trouble:
“NewsMax CEO Christopher Ruddy’s cynical and sensational selection of Donald Trump to moderate the next presidential debate has backfired. Ruddy united conservative and liberal commentators and candidates in denouncing him and NewsMax for the obscene idea — with Ron Paul and Jon Hunstman leading the way in immediately refusing to participate in such a circus. Perry, and Romney were the next (rather belatedly) to refuse to participate. Bachmann has now also declined to participate on a program with look of The Apprentice and the dignity of the Jersey Wives. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich who have confirmed that they will appear with a carnival snake charmer to get on TV.”
————-
To think that the idea of Trump merely moderating a Presidential debate was “obscene” to Turley. One can only imagine how revolted Turley was by the prospect of Trump running for President!!!
“Exactly why should Congress have “Censured” the President for exercising his (Donald J. Trump) right to free speech?”
Because of the content of that speech. Among other things, Trump encouraged Pence to disobey his oath to uphold the Constitution.
You could have just clicked on Turley’s hyperlink to see his previous column about why he called for censure: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/533693-the-case-for-censuring-trump
encouraged Pence to disobey his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Trump as usual, not a politician, does not use the approved words, or procedures
He should not have encouraged, he should have said he found a constitutional work around. (ie rent moratorium)
And he failed to use the proper number of cut outs. Proper is to retain a lawyer to hire the people to obstruct the law. (ie, Clinton hiring Perkins, Coie, that then hired Fusion GPS, that then interfaced with Tec exec. #1
For those who want to dig into the details of Mehta’s ruling, here’s a better discussion by Marcy Wheeler:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/21/how-judge-amit-mehta-argued-it-plausible-that-trump-conspired-with-two-militias/
Unlike Turley, she reads and sometimes responds to comments.
Also a brief response by Eugene Volokh:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/18/court-in-civil-case-holds-trumps-jan-6-speech-could-be-constitutionally-unprotected-incitement/
Wheeler’s analysis is far more concise than Turley’s. It’s actually more in depth than Turley’s. She went into the details that matter instead of Turley’s meandering about trying to find enough “meat” for Trump supporters to latch on to. It was interesting that the permit for the rally did not allow marching to the Capitol. Trumps call to March to the Capitol building was literally inciting a crowd to lawlessness.
The mention of Trump’s claim of “faithfully” executing the law was shown to be not a function of what he’s allowed so do when Mehta pointed out that the president isn’t part of the certification process.
ATS is playing the link to garbage game where he can’t tell anyone what Wheeler is talking about.
Skipping the rest of the garbage, I will summarize Wheeler’s first point. There is no need to read further.
“They agreed to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification:”
Just because two entities have the same goal doesn’t mean they agreed to act in concert. This statement demonstrates the logical failures of Wheeler. ATS is no better because he couldn’t even put what she said in his own words. Instead, he LINKED and fell into the same logic hole.
Actually, Meyer, your comment demonstrates your exceptionally weak reading comprehension skills. The partial sentence you just quoted was the first of five bulleted points where Wheeler was summarizing the main points of Mehta’s ruling, and after each of her summary claims, she quoted from the ruling to illustrate it in Mehta’s own words:
“They agreed to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification: ‘The President, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and others “pursu[ed] the same goal”: to disrupt Congress from completing the Electoral College certification on January 6th.’”
She accurately summarized what Mehta argued (a quote from page 70 of Mehta’s ruling), and if you disagree with Mehta’s claim, you should at the very least understand that it is HIS claim that you’re disagreeing with.
She even prefaced it with “As Judge Mehta laid out, accepting the claims alleged as true (which one must do on motions to dismiss), there were five things Trump did that made the plaintiffs’ claims of a conspiracy plausible, which is the standard required to reject the motion to dismiss:” But even when Wheeler provided this totally clear explanation of her bulleted list of 5 with quotes from his ruling, you still didn’t understand. You are the stupid person you’re always complaining about.
“he couldn’t even put what she said in his own words.”
As usual, you confuse “won’t” with “can’t.” That YOU want me to prechew your food for you does not create an onus for me to do it. If you were a good faith discussant — someone like Prairie Rose, for example — and asked me to, then I’d do it. But YOU are a trolling bad faith discussant, and I’m not going to do f- all on your behalf.
Thanks for once again demonstrating that you’re so filled with animus for me that you cannot objectively assess anything I reference.
Wheeler wrote the piece in the context of Trump being guilty of CONSPIRACY, where she even capitalized the word conspiracy. These were Wheeler’s words, “They agreed to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification:” They may have pursued the same goals, but they didn’t agree to anything.
This word “agreed” demonstrates the problem with your arguments and Wheeler’s. Both of you add or subtract a word and set the stage. With that set-up, you hope to convince people of things that were never said and never happened. those things are lies. Mehta’s statement is correct and didn’t need Wheeler or you to change what he said. You are dishonest.
Once Wheeler stages everything and then says, “They agreed,” one can stop reading and consider never reading her again. One doesn’t have to look at the other four points.
“Wheeler wrote the piece in the context of Trump being guilty of CONSPIRACY, where she even capitalized the word conspiracy.” (emphasis added)
Wow, no, you only underscore how astoundingly weak your reading comprehension is. She did not once assume that he is GUILTY of conspiracy.
She literally titled the column “How Judge Amit Mehta Argued It Plausible that Trump Conspired with Two Militias” (emphasis added)
Even though she is laying out that argument — that the Judge in his ruling argued that it’s PLAUSIBLE that Trump conspired — and even though she made it extremely explicit that she is discussing this because PLAUSIBILITY is the standard for ruling on the Trump’s motion to dismiss, you apparently cannot get it through your head that she is discussing Mehta’s ruling and HIS arguments about PLAUSIBILITY. Not about GUILT.
What idiot you are. You cannot understand the plain words on the page.
“Wow, no, you only underscore how astoundingly weak your reading comprehension is. She did not once assume that he is GUILTY of conspiracy.”
Anonymous the Stupid, I didn’t accuse Wheeler of saying that Trump was guilty, with or without capitalization. I accused her of being misleading and dishonest by quoting her words and pointing out the word “agreed,” which changed what Mehta said. I copied her words. You are creating red herrings. I did not judge the merits of the ruling, only her use of words to change the context of what Mehta said.
You are trying to spin but are failing as usual. Your chihuahua could do a better job.
—
I said: “Wheeler wrote the piece in the context of Trump being guilty of CONSPIRACY, where she even capitalized the word conspiracy. These were Wheeler’s words, “They agreed to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification:” They may have pursued the same goals, but they didn’t agree to anything. “
“I said: “Wheeler wrote the piece in the context of Trump being guilty of CONSPIRACY””
Yes, you lied that that’s the context. But the context is NOT “Trump being guilty of CONSPIRACY.” The column was about the PLAUSIBILITY of Trump having engaged in a conspiracy.
“They may have pursued the same goals, but they didn’t agree to anything.”
That will be determined at trial. As Mehta’s ruling made clear, all he was determining is whether it’s PLAUSIBLE that they agreed, and in doing so, “As is required on a motion to dismiss, the court assumes these facts to be “true (even if
doubtful in fact).”
You gripe that Wheeler used the word “agreed” even though Mehta also used the word “agreed”:
“The conspiracy alleged is that Defendants agreed “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat,” (1) Swalwell and the Bass Plaintiffs from discharging their duties in certifying the results of the presidential election and (2) the President-elect and Vice President–elect from “accepting or holding” their offices. It is this conspiracy that Plaintiffs must plausibly establish through well-pleaded facts. The court begins with a detailed summary of those facts and then, assuming those facts to be true, assesses their sufficiency as to each coconspirator. …”
Oh, horrors, she is accurately summarizing what Mehta wrote, how will you ever manage?
And right before the text you keep harping about, she makes explicit that she’s discussing the following: “As Judge Mehta laid out, accepting the claims alleged as true (which one must do on motions to dismiss), there were five things Trump did that made the plaintiffs’ claims of a conspiracy plausible, which is the standard required to reject the motion to dismiss: …” (followed by a bulleted list of the five things Mehta identifies).
But you cannot bring yourself to read her bulleted list in that context, because you want SO badly to reject her summary. Instead, you show yourself to be someone with willful reading comprehension problems.
You clearly do not understand the ruling, and you’re griping that someone else who *does* understand the ruling uses a word you disagree with. What an baby you are, waaaah, she used a word that the judge used but that I don’t like, waaaah!
“Yes, you lied that that’s the context.”
ATS, that is not true. Wheeler is trying to spin reality. She didn’t need to use the word agreed since that is a lie. Mehta’s words were good enough for point #1. I’m not arguing the plausibility. I am arguing over her choice of intentionally deceptive words.
Here is what she said. (Capitals are mine)
“They AGREED to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification:”
Mehta writes in clear English though I think that some word changes by Wheeler were made but did not significantly affect my argument.
“The President, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and others “pursu[ed] the same goal”: to disrupt Congress from completing the Electoral College certification on January 6th.”
‘Pursued’ the same goal is not the same as *agreed* to pursue the same goal. That word and the earlier use of the word Conspiracy tell me that she is dishonest.
You continue with your spin in the rest of your reply, but you are doing the same thing over again with your placement of arguments and words. You are dishonest as well, except you are an outright liar in your case.
I literally quoted a different sentence from Mehta where HE states “The conspiracy alleged is that Defendants agreed “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat,” (1) Swalwell and the Bass Plaintiffs from discharging their duties in certifying the results of the presidential election and (2) the President-elect and Vice President–elect from “accepting or holding” their offices.” THAT is the alleged conspiracy that Mehta and Wheeler are discussing the plausibility of.
You are the outright liar you complain about. That’s all you ever do, Allan: accuse others of your own faults and whine that people don’t do what you want them to do. Your arguments are as impotent as a chihuahua’s little barks.
Again, ATS, you are being dishonest. Two different statements with two different meanings. The ‘conspiracy alleged’ differs from ‘Trump and others agreed.’
You don’t stop lying. Stop taking dictation from the Chihuahua.
Awww, the chihuahua looks in the mirror and barks.
Anonymous the Stupid, have you yet figured out that one cannot say agreed when there was no known agreement. Ask your Chihuahua.
—-
‘Pursued’ the same goal is not the same as *agreed* to pursue the same goal. That word and the earlier use of the word Conspiracy tell me that she is dishonest.
I don’t have a chihuahua, Allan. You’re the chihuahua trying to get my attention, but I’m not interested in adopting you.
Wheeler isn’t dishonest. You simply cannot keep the opening sentence of a bulleted paragraph in mind as you interpret the second sentence in the paragraph. That’s your problem, not hers.
I don’t have a chihuahua, Allan.
Really? …And you think everyone believed you had one? Are you Stupid or something?
“Wheeler isn’t dishonest. ”
Compared to you, liars are relatively honest. I guess that is what you mean when you say she isn’t dishonest. Let’s compromise and say she spins rather than telling the truth.
I took Wheeler’s ideas one at a time. That is something you are unable to do. You run right to the conclusion and never think about the words she uses. That is what I have been telling you for a long time. You link to things you haven’t carefully read.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Again, ATS, you are being dishonest. Two different statements with two different meanings. The ‘conspiracy alleged’ differs from ‘Trump and others agreed.’
You don’t stop lying. Stop taking dictation from the Chihuahua.”
S. Meyer, it is you who is clearly the problem. You really do have serious reading comprehension issues. You’re NOT understanding the context of Wheeler’s analysis because you’re only focusing on STAND ALONE phrases as your “proof”. It takes more than one phrase or sentence to grasp the ENTIRETY of the analysis. Something that CLEARLY you are incapable of.
It is you who is being dishonest or just plain willfully stupid.
You don’t want to realize what Wheeler is really saying because you would be forced to recognize just how wrong you are. Can’t have that can we? So you manufacture these stupid rationales and accusations to prevent that realization at all costs. That’s what pure willful ignorance looks like. Geez S. Meyer.
Svelaz, it is the job of the op-ed writer to make sure their comments are correct even when providing an opinion. Wheeler missed the boat again and used inappropriate words to convince the reader. I don’t expect you to understand the problem since it involves more than minimal intellect. The reader should not be piecing an op-ed together to make sense. You do that type of thing, and that is why you are the southern end of a donkey heading north.
Quoting from my post five responses up:
“‘Pursued’ the same goal is not the same as *agreed* to pursue the same goal. That word and the earlier use of the word Conspiracy tell me that she is dishonest.”
“Kill the Redcoats!”
Free speech at the time. Brits were against our free speech.
I don’t recall who said or shouted that phrase.
On rare occasions I disagree with Professor Turley….and this is one of them.
The Professor is absolutely free to voice his learned opinion about Trump’s Speech but when he makes this comment I have to take issue with him.
“However, it is the free speech issue that is most concerning. My concern is not based on any agreement with Trump’s view of the election or Congress’s certification of it; I criticized his speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him; nevertheless, his remarks fall well short of the high standard set for criminal or civil liability for speech.”.
Exactly why should Congress have “Censured” the President for exercising his (Donald J. Trump) right to free speech?
Does Congress have the ability to Censure a President as he is not a member of that Body?
Even if they did…would Congress not have to conduct an Investigation and Hearings before it did?
The President, even President Trump, despite the desires of the Democrats, does enjoy the right to Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence as does every American.
Whether the Professor or anyone else not liking what the President said or when he said it….and as Professor Turley has said many times….Free Speech is under attack these days and should be protected from improper attacks.
Were Republicans in the Majority in both Houses of Congress and lowered themselves to use the exact same measures the Democrats did during Trump’s time in office…..would they like to see Joe Biden treated the same as Trump?
Professor Turley embraces the Honest Man Concept and is right to do so….would he have Biden done as Trump was?
Lord knows Biden has sure talked stupid since taking Office and does so with far too great a frequency than is healthy for our Nation.
Ralph,
This was a response to you but got decoupled due to some tech glitch: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/21/what-aboutism-ruling-against-trump-leaves-more-questions-than-answers-on-free-speech/#comment-2160615
Isn’t stare decisis essentially the court’s version of whataboutism?
No.
Olly asks:
“Isn’t stare decisis essentially the court’s version of whataboutism?”
The essence of legal reasoning is “whataboutism.” Lawyers compare one set of facts with another to argue that the subject case is just like a previous one or is distinguishable from it.
The problem with ”whataboutism” are those who employ it to justify bad conduct by pointing to similar conduct which may have gone unpunished. Citing similar bad conduct only reinforces the fact that the subject conduct is bad; it does not serve to excuse it. Two wrongs cannot make it right.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “stare decisis” as”: to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. ….Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where the facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same….Under the doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of a court made after argument on a question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy. (citations omitted).
Maybe someone should send Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary, since they don’t seem to understand that settled principles of law do not and should not change every time there are new judges appointed to the SCOTUS. People need to believe in the stability of settled points of law to make decisions in their lives.
A more nuanced approach is necessary.
Maybe someone should send Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary, since they don’t seem to understand that settled principles of law do not and should not change every time there are new judges appointed to the SCOTUS.
So the Warren court got it wrong in Brown v Board of Education, when they began striking down Jim Crow laws? After all, Plessy v Ferguson was a settled point of law, with a clear majority in 7-1 decision. Is that the kind of stability you’re expecting new justices to the court need to preserve?
No constitutional amendments are the answer.
Is there a comma missing from your comment?
The Warren court got Brown v Board wrong when they allowed an infinite amount of time for change to take place with no enforcement clause. It took decades and Justice Dept consent decrees for integration to take place in major school districts. There are still segregated school districts in places as diverse as Mississippi and New York. The Warren Court recognized that segregation wasn’t legal. They just didn’t do anything about it.
The Warren court got Brown v Board wrong when they allowed an infinite amount of time for change to take place with no enforcement clause.
Sure, because everyone knows that when SCOTUS rules, cultures peacefully follow. So what, a multi-generational, unconstitutional segregation policy would end on Friday and on Monday next, integration would be peacefully implemented? Right. Get back to me when you are ready to point fingers at the political party that was instrumental in exploiting every delaying tactic to the enforcement of the courts decision.
It didn’t end soon afterward because of the specific clause that allowed it, “With All Deliberate Speed!” Sure it was the Democratic Party then that delayed at every opportunity they got. They suppressed votes, used redistricting and Gerrymandering, they used the filibuster to grind any attempt at reform to a halt. Doesn’t that sound just like today’s Republican Party? You can’t condemn the Democtatic Party then and look the other way at the Republican Party now. You probably can and will but shouldn’t. The difference between us is I can tell you exactly how bad Democrats were, I can tell you how bad they presently are. Can you acknowledge anything Republicans are presently doing? I can tell you that too,
They suppressed votes, used redistricting and Gerrymandering, they used the filibuster to grind any attempt at reform to a halt. Doesn’t that sound just like today’s Republican Party?
What efforts are being made by the Republican party to suppress votes today? What efforts were made by the Democratic party to suppress votes? Is redistricting and/or gerrymandering unique to the Republican party? How about the use of the filibuster?
Since voter suppression and reform are subjective terms, how do you define them?
I’m registered Independent. I am an absolutist on the equal security of rights.
“What efforts are being made by the Republican party to suppress votes today? ”
That question is so ridiculous as to not deserve an answer, There is no proof you would accept anyway.
“What efforts were made by the Democratic party to suppress votes? Is redistricting and/or gerrymandering unique to the Republican party? How about the use of the filibuster?”
The current efforts by Republicans are not unique to Republicans, they are using mostly the same tactic as have been used by Democrats in the past, with admittedly fewer lynchings but there’s still time. Because they’ve been used before doesn’t mean they aren’t effective.
“Since voter suppression and reform are subjective terms, how do you define them?”
Voter suppression isn’t all that subjective, the definition is literally in the term. Reform is generally specific to the legislation as to what is intended. Brown v Board asked for reform that was perfectly clear, they just didn’t require it.
That question is so ridiculous as to not deserve an answer, There is no proof you would accept anyway.
As I suspected, you cannot articulate the suppression you claim is happening. Don’t be a coward, make your case. If the evidence is there, then I will have an opportunity to accept or reject it.
…with admittedly fewer lynchings but there’s still time.
Fewer lynchings? How many people have been “lynched” by Republicans? Is it more or less than the number that have faked claims of threats of being lynched? Since the rise of BLM, how many BLM protests have taken place protesting black on black violence?
Voter suppression isn’t all that subjective, the definition is literally in the term.
It’s meaningless however without an example. You said: They suppressed votes. For example, if they require voter ID for everyone, and someone isn’t permitted to vote because they don’t have an ID, is that voter suppression?
Everytime someone says something about voter suppression, you and others shout about the reasonableness of voter I.D., ignoring the dozens of other accompanying laws and restrictions that suppress votes. You have to be either blind or stupid not to see it.
Everytime someone says something about voter suppression, you and others shout about the reasonableness of voter I.D.,
I hadn’t realized until just now how illiterate you truly are. You’ve a memorized set of responses, and you spit them out when triggered by certain words or phrases.
I said: “It’s meaningless however without an example. You said: “They suppressed votes.” I said: “For example, if they require voter ID for everyone, and someone isn’t permitted to vote because they don’t have an ID, is that voter suppression?”
A high school graduate would not be triggered by a question merely asking for clarity on a definition. But not you. No sir. I include the phrase “voter ID” and that magic 8 ball of a brain of yours spits out a canned response.
I had you all wrong. You are not someone who has decided to right the wrongs of racial inequality in this country. That decision requires objectivity, reason and humility. No, you were programmed to think that was your decision and to run your programming whenever triggered to respond.
Sad.
I’m presuming (maybe too much) that you don’t live in a vacuum, totally unaware of the criticisms of voter suppression. You don’t need me to argue them with you, you already know.
You don’t need me to argue them with you, you already know.
As a reminder, you said voter suppression. What I know is there is no law that states it suppresses votes. There are however opinions that certain laws suppress votes. My opinion is there is no statewide laws that suppress legitimate votes.
I don’t “need” anything from you. You “need” it.
SO if the law doesn’t say it suppresses votes it doesn’t do so? The Constitution doesn’t mention slavery but is all about it.
That’s a great example proving my point. Your opinion is that the constitution is all about slavery. My opinion is it is about giving just enough power to government for it secure our life, liberty and property. Same government, two different opinions.
Now, unless you can move beyond opinion and prove your allegation, then I’m finished with you.
Can you please be finished with me? I don’t troll you.
https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/black-history-month-the-constitutions-role-in-enslavement-360a873b6b0b
“It took decades and Justice Dept consent decrees for integration to take place in major school districts. There are still segregated school”
What the Democrats did: “Doesn’t that sound just like today’s Republican Party? “
No. The Democrats are still trying to use race as a criteria for everything.
You have to either be blind or uncaring not to see it
Race was the issue for Democrats after the Civil War, and that issue continued through Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement. Today race is still the issue where Democrats are concerned. Democrats have spun MLK’s words around with legislation where race becomes more important than character.
I’m not trying to defend Republicans. I am not a Republican. I am trying to keep your fanciful ideas factual.
Race was the founding issue of the Republican Party, by the time of the disputed 1876 Presidential election, winning became more important than their main issue and they ushered in the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow. Shortly after the passage of Civil Rights Legislation in 1964, 1965, and 1968, the Republican Party became what the Democrats used to be, adopting almost all the tactics. Republicans ushered in the Southern Strategy, campaigned on Willie Horton and welfare queens, and learned the tactics of voter suppression better than Democrats ever did, plus they were better at controlling the Federal and Supreme Courts.
The MLK you partially quote was dead sent against the same tactics being used today. It took a beatdown on the Edmund Pettis Bridge on national television to get voting rights passed, it took MLK’s assassination to get Fair Housing passed. You really shouldn’t quote MLK without understanding everything he stood for and the tactics used against him.
Enigma, I’m not saying Republicans haven’t acted poorly though with regard to race they acted and today act far better than Democrats.
What I am saying is, you are wrong.
SM,
Enigma is trapped in the thinking that the blacks lot in life has a political solution. Thomas Sowell would argue that is completely false.
If you wanted to make a case Democrats have acted historically worse you’d be correct. Their present actions are so much worse than Democrats, (whose record isn’t great) that they aren’t a consideration. BTW, are you another of Allan’s identities?
It’s strange, MLK said that people should be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin, but today you have that reversed and can’t defend such a racist idea.
Allan?
Enigma, why do you ask?
When the discussion is too repetitive and the responses are lacking, I use an anonymous label to save others the time of reading such discussion. That way, other people can throw out my comments and the other anonymous comments and save time. Since our discussions have reached such a level where there is no forward motion, I went to the Anonymous label. I’m not blaming you. I am just trying to compromise and satisfy the needs of those that are tired of so much nonsense written in the comment section.
I would be happy to have a fruitful discussion with you and use my alias to progress.
I said all that needed to be said about both political parties. Today the left is pushing race and “CRT+.” That is horrible. I believe, like MLK, that people should be judged by their character, not the color of their skin. That is the way I was brought up. We would not adopt poor habits even when young and traveling through the south. We drank from black and white water fountains, sat in areas for black and white people and acted as if the color did not exist. That did not go unnoticed by some who we treated with dignity despite our actions.
Allan S. Meyer
I will return to my unique icon if you wish to discuss race seriously.
“Enigma, why do you ask?”
I like to know who is stalking me.
Is that your answer to what MLK said? This is a blog for discussion and various points of view along with rebuttals.
I guess the idea of stalking is part of the victimhood claim.
Enigma is trapped in the thinking that the blacks lot in life has a political solution. Thomas Sowell would argue that is completely false.
Sowell is class beyond reproach, inspiring, towering, proohetic. Enigma is just an angry black male.
Yes, Enigma, that particular anonymous commenter is Allan / S. Meyer. He has said multiple times that he posts anonymously when he wants to discourage others from participating in a subthread. Sometimes he signs his anonymous comments “SM,” but more often he doesn’t. With respect to all of the things that MLK Jr said and wrote, the only one that Allan can acknowledge is the single sentence from King’s I Have a Dream speech. Allan can’t even bring himself to discuss the entirety of that speech.
“He has said multiple times that he posts anonymously when he wants to discourage others from participating in a subthread.”
That is a lie, so it sounds like this is another Anonymous the Stupid alias. Anonymous the Stupid lies a lot. Posting anonymously is not to discourage those that wish to participate. It warns others that the series of posts might be a waste of time so that they can skip over the comment more quickly. I don’t think many people are interested in what your Chihuahua has to say.
I already explained that to Enigma in an earlier response. I do not hide as you do, so even when I am anonymous to you or Svelaz, everyone can tell who I am. You, on the other hand, hide under multiple aliases, always in denial and always blaming others for those things that retrospectively look foolish.
MLK’s entire crusade had to do with judging a man by his character rather than his color. You seem too dumb to realize that. He didn’t march because a Chihuahua told him to.
Natacha!
I actually agree with you on this point. Well done!
Young, if there was a terrible misjudgment by the court in a decision that created a grave continuing injustice, the only solution is to alter that judgment. That should not occur frequently, but two wrongs do not make things right. The legislature should act under such circumstances, but it generally does nothing.
There is a quality difference between legislative law and the constitution. Lower courts are bound by legislation and precedent however the Supreme Court is only bound? By the Constitution. For at least the past 100 years the Supreme Court reads into the Constitution whatever they want an in essence make new laws and invalidate laws that were on the books since our founding.
Not exactly right. The Court can also look to common law and often does. That’s why they sometimes cite Blackstone who published his Commentaries before our Revolution and even Bracton.
I wish our schools did a better job teaching about our legal system but they would have to understand it first. It truly is a wonderful creation.
“Judge Mehta’s opinion seems to reinforce the view that Trump’s speech was protected, too.”
No, it doesn’t, nor do you really present an argument for why you believe otherwise. To do so, you’d need too engage in detail with what Mehta wrote, such as:
Having considered the President’s January 6 Rally Speech in its entirety and in context, the court concludes that the President’s statements that, “[W]e fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and “[W]e’re going to try to and give [weak Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” immediately before exhorting rally-goers to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,” are plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. It is plausible that those words were implicitly “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [were] likely to produce such action.” …
“President Trump plays a game of what-aboutism, citing fiery speeches from Democratic legislators, including Plaintiff Waters, which he says likewise would not be protected speech if the court were to find, as it has, that the President’s is not. Thompson Trump Reply at 8, 11–13. The court does not find such comparators useful. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, as the court has done above. If the President’s larger point is that a speaker only in the rarest of circumstances should be held liable for political speech, the court agrees. Cf. Bible Believers, 805 F.3d at 244 (observing in a case involving religious expression that “[i]t is not an easy task to find that speech rises to such a dangerous level that it can be deemed incitement to riot”). That is why the court determines, as discussed below, that Giuliani’s and Trump Jr.’s words are protected speech. But what is lacking in their words is present in the President’s: an implicit call for imminent violence or lawlessness. He called for thousands “to fight like hell” immediately before directing an unpermitted march to the Capitol, where the targets of their ire were at work, knowing that militia groups and others among the crowd were prone to violence. Brandenburg’s imminence requirement is stringent, and so finding the President’s words here inciting will not lower the already high bar protecting political speech.
“The judge could well be reversed on the threshold question of immunity, raised by Trump, that presidents cannot be sued for speaking on matters of public interest.”
That’s certainly possible, but why don’t you address what Mehta concluded about this? Act like a law professor and dig in on the legal issues instead of making obvious statements that a ruling could be reversed.
“If Trump prevails on appeal …”
And if he doesn’t prevail? You don’t seem to want to address that.
The case should be allowed to go to trial. Let a jury hear all of the evidence.
“are plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. It is plausible that those words were implicitly “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [were] likely to produce such action.”
Lots of qualifying weasel words for a legal ruling. Does the mind reading skill get imbued with passing the Bar, or does it come with the Robe?
They aren’t “weasel words” at all. Plausibility is the legal bar for allowing the suit to move forward versus dismissing it. Which you might have known if you’d actually read the ruling:
“To establish standing at the motion to dismiss stage, the plaintiff ‘must state a plausible claim that [she has] suffered an injury in fact fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision on the merits.’”
No, it should not go to trial.
There is no duty. There are no damages.
There is no alleged tort.
Judge Mehta disagrees with you. Feel free to offer your legal services to Trump in appealing Mehta’s ruling.
For justice to work, it must be both impartial and believed to be impartial.
Right now the conservative half of the country doesn’t believe that justice is impartial.
The answer is not for the left to tell us that we are wrong (“Do you believe the left or your lying eyes?”).
Instead, the justice system has to slowly regain our trust through fair and judicious rulings.
So far, it’s not happening.
The left has been arguing for a long time that justice is not impartial.
The rich and powerful get away with all sorts of things that land poorer people in jail.
Indeed. And remarkably, most of those rich and powerful are Democrats.
No, they aren’t. “One-third of the nation’s [wealthiest] “1%” identify themselves as Republicans, 41% as independents, and 26% as Democrats” — https://news.gallup.com/poll/151310/u.s.-republican-not-conservative.aspx
We’re not talking about the top 1%. We’re talking about the top ,01%,
That may be who *you* are talking about, but it’s not who *I* was talking about when I said “The rich and powerful get away with all sorts of things that land poorer people in jail.”
Anonymous: Like Hillary Clinton you mean?
Like Clintons AND Trumps.
Anonymous says:
“The rich and powerful get away with all sorts of things that land poorer people in jail.”
I agree. With any luck, the rich and powerful Trump will end up in jail.
That is sporadic. One thinks that cases involving the rich and the poor might have ended up more favorably for those less affluent. Patty Hearst comes to mind.
The problem comes mostly when the rule of law is not followed. Then again, you don’t seem to follow the rule of law in most of your arguments.
Maybe I missed it. Has Turley said a word about the plot coordinated by the White House to replace electors in the states he lost and overturn the election? I get that there is a free speech issue in this case and Trump won’t likely lose in the case Turley described. The part of the speech that should be criticized (though not illegal) was his promise to march down to the Capitol with the protesters. Instead he watched them on television, cheering, unable to understand why those around him weren’t thrilled as well. I agree that this speech is protected, not so much as the Klan case Turley cited where a Klan leader incited a mob to violence. Then again, maybe those two speeches had a lot in common.
That’s legal and not a free-speech or civil liberties issue. Why would Turley discuss it?
Turley discusses legal issues all the time. Just not those that would piss off his base.
No, actually, it is not legal for alternate electors to falsely certify to the federal government that they are their state’s electors. They sent their fake certificates to the National Archives through the US mail, and they are being investigated by the DOJ and by state attorneys general. Among the possible laws broken: federal and state laws against false statements, forgery, and election fraud.
Yes, it is legal, And their certificates weren’t fake.
You’re a bad liar.