Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom

Gregorikos said:

So what.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

I'm sure the Press will try to blow this up to try making her look totally unqualified. It won't work. It'll just make the Press look more desperate to grasp at straws.

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn said:

Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom

Things a Supreme Court judge should know and not forget, ever. It's not surprising that the one she forgot was the right to protest. I almost think she intentionally leaves that one out in her own mind because she personally doesn't support it.

The question was asked by a Republican, a total softball question, and she struck out.

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn said:

Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom

Things a Supreme Court judge should know and not forget, ever. It's not surprising that the one she forgot was the right to protest. I almost think she intentionally leaves that one out in her own mind because she personally doesn't support it.

The question was asked by a Republican, a total softball question, and she struck out.

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn said:

Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom

Things a Supreme Court judge should know and not forget, ever. It's not surprising that the one she forgot was the right to protest. I almost think she intentionally leaves that one out in her own mind because she personally doesn't support it.

The question was asked by a Republican, a total softball question, and she struck out.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

While I'm reluctant to read too much into things like this (e.g. Rick Perry's being unable to remember the name of the Energy Dept), it's quite clear that Republicans are okay with letting the protesting rights fall by the wayside - or at least for those who'd exercise those rights in pursuit of things Republicans don't like.

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn said:

Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom
Things a Supreme Court judge should know and not forget, ever. It's not surprising that the one she forgot was the right to protest. I almost think she intentionally leaves that one out in her own mind because she personally doesn't support it.
The question was asked by a Republican, a total softball question, and she struck out.

Click to expand...

tz620q said:

The right to protest is not absolute. It does not give one the right to walk down an interstate and block traffic. It does not give one the right to block off an emergency room entrance and imperil the injured. The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights stated it this way in Article 11:

"2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

So the U.S. government could have stopped the protests in June by saying that they represented a serious public health risk for people to assemble during a pandemic.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

No rights are absolute, but watch the right get their dander up every time somebody even looks askance at firearms. Watch also how they can imagine religious freedoms for a legal construct like a corporation.

But it's apparently okay to sacrifice the right to peacefully protest outside the white house on the altar of Trump's photo op, eh?

Click to expand...

grasping the after wind said:

There is no mention of a right to protest in the First Amendment. Barrett mentioned freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Between the two is what would cover the right to protest. What Barrett failed to recall was the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. A completely different thing than merely protesting. Both Sasse and Forbes are wrong to equate petitioning for redress of grievances with groups protesting .

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn said:

Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom

Things a Supreme Court judge should know and not forget, ever. It's not surprising that the one she forgot was the right to protest. I almost think she intentionally leaves that one out in her own mind because she personally doesn't support it.

The question was asked by a Republican, a total softball question, and she struck out.

Click to expand...

pescador said:

Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: ''the right of the people peaceably to assemble'' in order to ''petition the government.'' 209 Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, ''cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. . . . [It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions--principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. . . . The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. (Source:FindLaw)

Click to expand...

tz620q said:

I was in DC about 18 years ago right after someone jumped the fence and got half way to the White House before the Secret Service apprehended him. At that time they had pushed the barriers at the White House Gate to the other side of the street, meaning that you couldn't even get close to the fence. Right after that I traveled to Buenos Aires, which had just had many protests and riots from the Debt Default and the banks closing down. I walked right by the window of the Casa Rosa and could have gotten up to the front steps before a couple of machine gun toting guards would have stopped me. Protection of the President is taken very seriously in the U.S. and that includes not allowing protesters to get within handgun range of him. If you want to read what happens when this is ignored read about the assassination of President McKinley.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

Uh... So what? The protesters were there, legally, peacefully hours before Trump staged his own March on Washington. His trip to the church was not necessary to serve some function of his office; it was an entirely elective, entirely political action. He and his subordinates willingly, deliberately violated the protesters' rights (and not just violated their rights; they assaulted the protesters in the process of violating their rights) for a superficial stunt. And loads of Republicans, yourself included, have defended those actions which says to me that, regardless of what Judge Barrett might think, all of ya'll don't give two hoots about that right when it's being exercised by your political opponents and violated by your political allies.

Click to expand...