All attending the rallies must genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views”
Yes. Yes they do.
“but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose”
Absurd. Either they have First Amendment rights or they don’t.
I really hope his SCOTUS pick swats this one down.
It has to be quite a shock to his system to be unable, for the first time in his long and useless life, to call every shot and dictate outcomes. Being under a microscope with investigators from both the media and the IC scrutinizing his every move, including checking into messy things like “pay for play”, is getting under his thin orange skin more than most anything other that his amusingly wretched approval numbers.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Says nothing about outside versus inside.
They wrote that “even if Mr. Trump implicitly instructed the audience to remove the protesters by using force if necessary, his speech was still entirely lawful and protected under the First Amendment unless he advocated a greater degree of force than was necessary under the circumstances.”
Really? That’s what they’re going with? They make Bill O’s lawyers look like Clarence Darrow.
And you have no right to not cheer when you’re at his rallies. You can’t just stand there, you must cheer!
His oath to uphold the US Constitution was “not intended to be a factual statement”
If all else fails, I’ll go with the guy on the right.
@bluefalcon I’m no lawyer but this sounds like an attempt to “abridge the freedom of speech.”
“I’d like to punch him in the face,” Trump said, remarking that a man disrupting his rally was escorted out with a smile on his face. "He’s smiling, having a good time.
No dictator! No dictator! What’s next, the old attendees wear underwear outside so we can check?
This one is open-and-shut, by the way. Trump incited violence, and is on camera doing so. And he didn’t stop there: he offered to pay legal fees for those that harm protesters.
He’s guilty.
It is the current Putin/Russian model they are promoting: Protest Demonstrations are allowed, but only in the designated areas (which happens to be out-of-way unpleasant spots, easy to control by the police). The Winter Olympics is a case in mind…
This is a really dumb and distracting argument. Whether the event was public or private, everyone has a “right” not to be assaulted and injured by the people around them. If I go to a house party that I am not invited to I don’t have a right to be there but that sure as heck doesn’t give the people who were invited the right to beat me up. Hosting an event with thousands of people limits the choices you have in dealing with people you wish hadn’t come – you get security officials to escort them out but that disrupts the flow – but that doesn’t mean beating them up is a permissible option. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
If the law isn’t in your favor, throw useless motions at the judge until s/he gives in.
As much as Trump would love it to be – especially the kleptocracy part of it – America still ain’t Russia.
The judiciary will now have to once again invest time in checking the asshole. Hopefully it’ll one day check him all the way into a cell where he belongs.
Nor was it a one-off, but rather was part of a much larger pattern of Trump inciting violence, and seeing violence occur moments after he incited it. So even backing down to “Hey, how could we have known?” doesn’t work as a defense. Its Willful on his part, with the expectation that violence would occur.
Alas, maybe that’s it. Maybe he’s testing someone.
Perfectly normal
For a four-year-old.
And try to delay any decision until your man is out of office.
Yes there is.
It is in the constitution.