“The words allegedly uttered by presidential candidate
Donald Trump during his speech do not make out a plausible claim for
incitement to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct creating grave
danger of personal injury or property damage.”
If one of the shove-es had actually been knocked to the ground and suffered a concussion and broken ribs, would that have been enough, or was that just a fluke vs. “grave danger”? Personally, I think having the mob turned on you would constitute grave danger right there. I would hold that “get ‘em out of here,” at a Trump rally is much like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
If trump had been a black man speaking at a BLM rally, that would have been enough.
IANAL, so is the court basically giving the finger to the plaintiffs by putting “allegedly” in front of the words millions of people have seen and heard?
Guy, err, judge put there by W Bush, what else might be expected?
All three judges — McKeague, Griffin and White — are Rethugliklan appointees; McKeague by noted Carlyle Group kingpin (who still enjoys receiving the Presidential Daily Brief, likely for investment purposes) King George 1, the other two by Shrubya.
But does that have any bearing on their decisions? Usually.
If it’s ok for trump to incite violence toward protesters then it should be ok for me to publish and post all sorts of nasty things about him freely without consequence.
“The words allegedly uttered…”
Allegedly?
“Moreover,” he added, “any doubt about this conclusion is wholly dispelled by consideration of the constitutional protection Trump’s speech enjoys under the First Amendment.”
So, apparently, yelling fire, when there is none, in a crowded theater is now protected by the First Amendment, or does that only apply if TRUMP were the one yelling???
First amendment rights are now like 2nd amendment rights. Say what you want when ever you want and no consequences. You can never incite to riot (unless you are of a certain class and/or race).
I guess trump can do no wrong. Sad.
Existing while black is a crime in many places
I wonder how they would have decided if the black kid who was punched in the face as he was being thrown out of a rally had joined the case.
A lawyer for the protesters told Reuters: “We respect the Court’s opinion but will seek further review.”
After the Democrats eventually get the House and Senate, can they have mass impeachment cases? Or will they have to process one at a time?
I’m leaning toward one at a time. This way we get to review the idiotic rulings and why they’re idiotic. And then as the bodies start to pile up retirement might look good to more and more.
A good point.
Also, we can convict one, and appoint his successor the same day.
We’ll call it “Repeal and Replace”.
The IOKIYAR Amendment to the US Constitution.
Unfortunately they can impeach all they want, but it’s going to be a very long time if ever (probably not), before they have enough votes in the Senate to remove a conservative judge from the bench, even if s/he shoots someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight.
Republicans accept this now.
Be free! Be disorderly!
Thanks to Trumpism, the next President can just fire them, impeach them, demote them, whatever…
The President is above the law, can’t be charged.
So why follow any law? Why not just break them all?
: - )
“We respect the Court’s opinion but will seek further review.”
Why on earth do you respect an opinion like that? Would the same judges have been so solicitous of someone calling for physical action agains drumpf claiming that they had the 1st Amendment right to do it?