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

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...

This is silly.

The president has security needs. Those security needs cannot be met with a crowd of protesters in the location the president is going to. Given the violence we've seen from these protests, that's not at all unreasonable.

They were given the opportunity to leave....they decided not to.

If the got injured because they refused a lawful order to vacate the area (multiple orders actually) that's on them.

There's plenty of places to protest in the US, no one has to protest where the president is.

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...

Considering that there is no right to protest in the first amendment I'd say she did okay.

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...

Just like how the left gets their "dander up" every time somebody even "looks askance" at abortions?

iluvatar5150 said:

The issue is that the president doesn't have the right to travel wherever he wants if doing so involves violating the civil rights of other people.

Click to expand...

Of course he does....and no one's rights were violated. They could have simply moved their protest.

Imagine that the president is travelling to Oregon to assess the situation and speak with Portland officials and locals....he can't do that if people decide to protest around the airport? He has to not do his job? People can just block him in the street and he has to give up or wait?

It's a ridiculous premise.

Ana the Ist said:

This is silly.

The president has security needs. Those security needs cannot be met with a crowd of protesters in the location the president is going to. Given the violence we've seen from these protests, that's not at all unreasonable.

Click to expand...

The president has security needs. The president doesn't have stupid photo op needs.

They were given the opportunity to leave....they decided not to.

If the got injured because they refused a lawful order to vacate the area (multiple orders actually) that's on them.

Click to expand...

No, they weren't given the opportunity to leave. One guy with a bullhorn on one end of the crowd shouted something a couple times in a manner that was only audible to a handful of people in the immediate vicinity. No attempt was made to communicate clearly to even a significant portion of the crowd. The police did barely enough to tick off the "lawful order" box, not enough to actually communicate with the crowd.

There's plenty of places to protest in the US, no one has to protest where the president is.

Click to expand...

They weren't protesting where the president was. they were protesting where the president wasn't. The president then went to where the protesting was and chose to walk through the middle of it. Trump voluntarily and unnecessarily inserted himself into that situation.

Ana the Ist said:

Of course he does....and no one's rights were violated. They could have simply moved their protest.

Click to expand...

They (theoretically) could have if somebody in law enforcement had done an adequate job of communicating those instructions to the crowd. But they didn't.

Imagine that the president is travelling to Oregon to assess the situation and speak with Portland officials and locals....he can't do that if people decide to protest around the airport? He has to not do his job? People can just block him in the street and he has to give up or wait?

Click to expand...

Trump wasn't doing his job. He was staging a photo op for his re-election campaign.

iluvatar5150 said:

The president has security needs. The president doesn't have stupid photo op needs.

Click to expand...

Oh I see...you think that the way to solve this conflict of interest is to somehow crowdsource opinions on whether or not the particular thing the president is doing is important enough for security needs.

That doesn't seem like it would work.

No, they weren't given the opportunity to leave. One guy with a bullhorn on one end of the crowd shouted something a couple times in a manner that was only audible to a handful of people in the immediate vicinity. No attempt was made to communicate clearly to even a significant portion of the crowd. The police did barely enough to tick off the "lawful order" box, not enough to actually communicate with the crowd.

Click to expand...

From the various sources I've read, they were told 3 times at 5-10 minute intervals .

So anywhere from 15 minutes to about a half hour.

They weren't protesting where the president was. they were protesting where the president wasn't.

Click to expand...

Which happened to be where he was going.

The president then went to where the protesting was and chose to walk through the middle of it. Trump voluntarily and unnecessarily inserted himself into that situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah...presidents go places. Wild times we're living in.

They (theoretically) could have if somebody in law enforcement had done an adequate job of communicating those instructions to the crowd. But they didn't.

Click to expand...

Reporters on the scene seemed to have heard it and understood....even if they failed to understand the instructions applied to them.

Trump wasn't doing his job.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. It doesn't matter though when the issue is security. He could have been going out to dinner for all I care. Given what happened to JFK and Reagan, telling protesters to walk a mile down the road is entirely reasonable.

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...

To be completely accurate, you'd use the modifier 'some' -- "...it's quite clear that some Republicans are okay with letting the protesting rights fall by the wayside..."

On the internet though you can easily read viewpoints where the individual would say they are Republican, but their viewpoint is not what most Republicans would agree with. Having said that, I do wonder just what percentage of current U.S. Republican voters (I am only sporadically now a days) would agree that the right to peaceful protest is a good American right, which is beneficial to the nation.

I'd like to know if that is 70%, 80%, 50%...???

At least sometimes some prominent Republicans have this year endorsed the right of peaceful protest.

The most American of all American rights, you could say, is free speech, and peaceful protest is free speech.

It's the epitome of free speech.

It's what puts the "American" in "Freedom".

I think it's fair to say that those who oppose peaceful protest are "UnAmerican" in a key, essential way.

Halbhh said:

To be completely accurate, you'd use the modifier 'some' -- "...it's quite clear that some Republicans are okay with letting the protesting rights fall by the wayside..."

On the internet though you can easily read viewpoints where the individual would say they are Republican, but their viewpoint is not what most Republicans would agree with. Having said that, I do wonder just what percentage of current U.S. Republican voters (I am only sporadically now a days) would agree that the right to peaceful protest is a good American right, which is beneficial to the nation.

I'd like to know if that is 70%, 80%, 50%...???

At least sometimes some prominent Republicans have this year endorsed the right of peaceful protest.

The most American of all American rights, you could say, is free speech, and peaceful protest is free speech.

It's the epitome of free speech.

It's what puts the "American" in "Freedom".

I think it's fair to say that those who oppose peaceful protest are "UnAmerican" in a key, essential way.

Click to expand...

IME, it's mainly the libertarian-leaning folks (Republican or not) who still value the right to protest. Otherwise, I see a lot of people on the right being totally okay with harsh police responses and defending cases of poor communication and escalation of violence on the part of the police.

Ana the Ist said:

From the various sources I've read, they were told 3 times at 5-10 minute intervals .

So anywhere from 15 minutes to about a half hour.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that they said anything at all. I'm claiming that they did a lousy job of it. The federal police falsely claimed to have used an LRAD, while the NG commander testified to Congress that they used a megaphone that was laying on a bench that was barely audible at 30 yards:
Protesters Were Supposed To Hear Warnings Before Federal Police Moved In. They Didn't

There's no confusing an LRAD with a megaphone. Video from the square is easily available and nowhere in it is any sort of command audible or set of instructions or warnings visible. From the location the video was shot, there was no warning.

iluvatar5150 said:

I'm not disputing that they said anything at all. I'm claiming that they did a lousy job of it. .

Click to expand...

I understand that...I was clear on what your claim was.

Let's imagine that hypothetically....I'm in any situation in public where the police are trying to tell me, or a crowd of people that I'm a part of, some sort of information....

Should I...

A. Shut up and listen to what the police are saying?

B. Disregard the police?

To me, it's pretty obvious that A is the correct answer here. Furthermore, if I'm just going to be frank....I don't think these protesters would necessarily have obeyed the commands from police nor would I expect them to be honest about hearing them. That's basically the behavior I've seen at every protest I've seen footage of....people disobeying the police and then blaming the police for the result.

I don't know why you think this protest is somehow different. If what I'm describing above isn't what you've been seeing....just say so....there's plenty of footage of protesters disobeying police I can find for you.

HTacianas said:

Considering that there is no right to protest in the first amendment I'd say she did okay.

Click to expand...

Perhaps compared to some criticizing her. I would consider protests covered under the rigth to peacefully assemble and freedom of speach.

What she did miss was the right to petition the government for redress of grievences. That is a right particularly when Donald does such a good George immitation.

Ana the Ist said:

I understand that...I was clear on what your claim was.

Let's imagine that hypothetically....I'm in any situation in public where the police are trying to tell me, or a crowd of people that I'm a part of, some sort of information....

Should I...

A. Shut up and listen to what the police are saying?

B. Disregard the police?

To me, it's pretty obvious that A is the correct answer here.

Click to expand...

Sure. But when you're in a crowd of people, it's very easy to not hear those instructions - to miss altogether the fact that there's even something to which you ought to shut up and listen - unless the police put some real effort into communicating that message. And in this case, they obviously didn't put any real effort into it. It seems obvious to me that they did the bare minimum required to check off a box on somebody's checklist. It would have been very easy for them to have, for example, gone down the line of barricades and tell people that the park was closing early. But they didn't; they stayed put.

This is hardly the first case of poor communication on the part of the police. In fact, in many of these questionable shootings or other police actions, it's struck me that the videos often show a failure on the part of the police to communicate either their identities or their wishes to the victims.

Furthermore, if I'm just going to be frank....I don't think these protesters would necessarily have obeyed the commands from police nor would I expect them to be honest about hearing them. That's basically the behavior I've seen at every protest I've seen footage of....people disobeying the police and then blaming the police for the result.

I don't know why you think this protest is somehow different. If what I'm describing above isn't what you've been seeing....just say so....there's plenty of footage of protesters disobeying police I can find for you.

Click to expand...

Ya know, you're probably right. As much as I dump on police, my opinion of the protesters isn't really any better. And depending on my mood at any given moment, it may even be worse. There are a ton if manipulative, disingenuous people on the left, and it's gross.

The difference for me is that I expect the cops to be better. I expect them to follow the rules and to do their jobs in good faith and in a way that respects people. If the cops give clear, lawful instructions and the protesters refuse to comply, then that's on the protestors. But if the cops give instructions that are inaudible, or confusing, or unable to be followed, or no instructions at all and react in such a way that's disproportionate to what the other person could've reasonably been expected to do, then that's on the cops. To me, the Lafayette Park clearing was clearly a failure on the part of the cops and of the federal officials for demanding something that would likely result in those sort of abuses.

iluvatar5150 said:

Sure. But when you're in a crowd of people, it's very easy to not hear those instructions - to miss altogether the fact that there's even something to which you ought to shut up and listen - unless the police put some real effort into communicating that message. And in this case, they obviously didn't put any real effort into it. It seems obvious to me that they did the bare minimum required to check off a box on somebody's checklist. It would have been very easy for them to have, for example, gone down the line of barricades and tell people that the park was closing early. But they didn't; they stayed put.

This is hardly the first case of poor communication on the part of the police. In fact, in many of these questionable shootings or other police actions, it's struck me that the videos often show a failure on the part of the police to communicate either their identities or their wishes to the victims.

Click to expand...

I'm sure we've seen the same videos....I've no doubt that the majority of the people there probably couldn't hear the commands. I don't really disagree with you on that. It's entirely possible there's footage that contradicts this that we simply haven't seen...but we can only go off what we have.

As for speaking with everyone down the front line....I don't see how that would dramatically improve the communication.

I also watched the footage of them clearing the square....and it seems blatantly obvious that they wanted people to leave. Even if you were in the crowd and missed the verbal cues....the nonverbal communication was clear as a bell.

Ya know, you're probably right. As much as I dump on police, my opinion of the protesters isn't really any better. And depending on my mood at any given moment, it may even be worse. There are a ton if manipulative, disingenuous people on the left, and it's gross.

The difference for me is that I expect the cops to be better. I expect them to follow the rules and to do their jobs in good faith and in a way that respects people. If the cops give clear, lawful instructions and the protesters refuse to comply, then that's on the protestors. But if the cops give instructions that are inaudible, or confusing, or unable to be followed, or no instructions at all and react in such a way that's disproportionate to what the other person could've reasonably been expected to do, then that's on the cops. To me, the Lafayette Park clearing was clearly a failure on the part of the cops and of the federal officials for demanding something that would likely result in those sort of abuses.

Click to expand...

Right....so as long as the police perform their jobs perfectly, you'll hold the other party accountable.

I don't know if that's ever going to happen. I can't think of any footage of a police interaction that I couldn't say that "this" or "that" could have been done a little bit better. It's the Monday morning quarterback situation where one has the benefit of hindsight on a situation that would have been far more difficult and confusing in real time.

I don't like the cop swinging his baton at the Australian reporter....I think the guy should be disciplined. It looked like the reporter's back was to him.

I remember footage of what appeared to be a early 20s guy standing right next to one of those rubber pellet grenades....which also seemed excessive. That probably shouldn't have been thrown.

If we had all the footage available....I've no doubt we'd certainly see other things the police did that I don't agree with or find excessive.

The flip side of course is that it looks mainly like the protesters are there to fight the police. There's no law they want written. There's no rights they're being denied. It looks like they're using something that happened far away as a pretext to justify some generalized racial views and hatred of police. I can glance at any social media these days and see teenagers who probably never interact with the police condemning them and calling for their abolition and the abolition of prisons. If I dig around the local news of big cities....I might actually find a resident of a particularly rough neighborhood who is terrified of the idea that police not patrolling their streets. Lack of police is ripping these communities apart really quickly. Smart cops are looking for the door, and I can't recall ever seeing multiple black police chiefs retiring or resigning in these numbers.

I know it's media driven. I know that there's literally no one telling the truth...it's all slanted in the direction they think their readers want. It blew my mind that one of the least biased accounts of this specific incident came from NPR.

It's a weird time. I thought for most of my life society was leaning away from beliefs and opinions...and embracing facts. The last 10 years though...opinions are making a huge comeback. They're drowning out facts...and I'm not happy about what that means for society.

It just looks like endless conflict.

pescador said:

Are you serious? She is a Supreme Court candidate. Her gender, number of kids, and religion has nothing to do with it (hopefully). If she doesn't know the First Amendment totally -- the basis of human rights in this country -- that is a problem.

I'm certain she will be confirmed, however. Trump could have nominated a partisan monkey and the Republicans in the would confirm it.

Click to expand...

I'm quite serious and she does know the Constitution quite well, having been a Professor, teaching Constitutional law.

She rattled off 4 of the five immediately, and paused momentarily in a lapse. If you have never ever forgotten one of a list of things you know well momentarily - especially after two days of grueling testimony - please enlighten us all on how to be more perfect.

Heck, I can forget for a moment why I walked into the kitchen.

Aryeh Jay said:

Good golly! 7 children? You are correct! Forget about this unnecessary questioning and witch-hunt. She needs to withdraw her nomination and take care of her growing family and be a good mother like the Bible commands and forget about all this Supreme Court nonsense, there just isn’t enough time.

Click to expand...

How very sexist of you, a comment I suspect would be attacked if she were a pro-abortion nominee.

RestoreTheJoy said:

How very sexist of you, a comment I suspect would be attacked if she were a pro-abortion nominee.

Click to expand...

Almost as sexist as pointing out she has seven kids…

You know, a person’s opinion on abortion is not the only benchmark for determining if someone is qualified for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Aryeh Jay said:

Almost as sexist as pointing out she has seven kids…

You know, a person’s opinion on abortion is not the only benchmark for determining if someone is qualified for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

She does have seven kids. That's called a ...fact.

Of course I know that this is not the only benchmark. But now that Obergefell was passed, it's the primary litmus test, along with the ACA, that they believe helped Americans (it helped a percentage who were low income), though the preexisting condition elimination was a positive. Costs have gone sky high to the extent that it is basically cheaper to pay outright without insurance today, unless you are one of those rare people who still have a good plan. There are a few other pet causes, but these are primary, in my view.