Discussion: DOJ Appeals Ruling That Trump Violating Rights Of Those He Blocks On Twitter

This one should be a slam dunk, as long as the government argues that (some) tweets have the status of official pronouncement. (Also means it’s a crime to delete tweets.)

8 Likes

“If the President does it, it isn’t Illegal”.

So, of course. As long as Trump is the one blocking them, it’s legal. How dare the Courts say otherwise?

1 Like

How is the DOJ going to get any of its attorneys to write that appeal? Good luck with that.

2 Likes

Because Dear Leader’s lack of right to block critics on Twitter is what we should be spending DOJ resources on. :roll_eyes:

Sorry Donny, your Twitter feed is an official presidential record. An incredibly embarrassing official presidential record the stupidity, venality, and corruption of which historians will marvel, but still…

9 Likes

I’m glad DOJ is keeping its priorities in mind and definitely not frivolously spending tax dollars on stupid bullshit.

4 Likes

Clearly, this is what DOJ should be spending our resources on: attacking the First Amendment rights of political dissidents. It’s just as the Founding Fathers imagined.

12 Likes

Justice Department attorney Michael Baer wrote in August 2017 that the case could prove to be harmful to the First Amendment and that dictating “that a president’s choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter,” a private company, could “violate the Constitution.”

The first amendment says that goverment may not interfere (with well known limits - yelling fire in crowded theatre) with the right of individuals to speak their minds freely.

Trump IS the fucking government, you idiot.

8 Likes

I guarantee you there’s a slavering imbecile sycophant conservative attorney among the ranks who is chomping at the bit to get his hands on this in hopes of protecting and impressing his white Christian nationalist messiah.

10 Likes

Another instance where the wee tiny helper elf has an audience of exactly one.

7 Likes

BIngo. Any other A.G. would have told Trump that he can’t violate the First Amendment to avoid having his feelings hurt. And make no mistake about it, this is a classic First Amendment violation - it’s a textbook example of prior restraint. Trump doesn’t want to punish people for the consequences of what they post (the “shouting fire” example) - he wants to prevent them posting from the get-go.

5 Likes

You’re right—and it will be a straight white male

1 Like

The first amendment ensures that Americans have a right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Given Trump’s l’etat c’est moi approach to governance, Trump’s Twitter account has to fall into the category of “petition”

2 Likes

Speaking of the wee helper elf:

He needs to speak to the elven shop steward.

4 Likes

They can tweet their appeal for all I care. OOops, only 280 characters allowed. That’s 140 more than they’ll need by trump’s personal team of crackpot DOJ lawyers who have been ordered by Sessions to comply with the Dear Leader’s request.

Can’t wait for Donald J. Trump, Esq. to give his legal rationale. ‘Everyone knows’ Don the Con also has a law degree from the Wharton School of Business and Law. Its right there in his book, The Art of The Steal.

When the fuck will this Barnum and Bailey shitshow of a presidency end?

His obsession with repeating the same shit over and over again has gone from simply annoying to pure bonkers. That’s a dangerous sign in some ways.

He’s become the Perseverator in Chief. If only he could just wash his hands a hundred times a day instead, to get rid of his inner cooties.

3 Likes

The quote from the mother of one of the TX school shooting victims (I know, without a scorecard, it’s tough to keep your school shootings sorted out) is germaine:

She … said Trump “kept mentioning” arming classroom teachers. “It was like talking to a toddler…”

3 Likes

Justice Department attorney Michael Baer wrote in August 2017 that the case could prove to be harmful to the First Amendment and that dictating “that a president’s choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter,” a private company, could “violate the Constitution.”

I am greatly confused.

Denying the President the right to prevent comments on his public forum official document Twitter account is a violation of the Constitution?

Oh, the Russian constitution. Sorry, I forgot.

2 Likes

He’s confessing to obstructing justice. He’s saying he would have picked someone else, in hindsight, who would have killed the Russia probe.

6 Likes

So we should be suing to garnish the Dixie Pixie’s salary for this blatant attempt of sucking up to L’Orange?

2 Likes