4 ms·

Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent. Who can protest, if the risk is that someone/anyone at the protest does something illegal & you get the blame? Shame on

Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent. Who can protest, if the risk is that someone/anyone at the protest does something illegal & you get the blame? Shame on this fucked up court system.

skhunted 3y ago
The Constitution badly needs a rewrite.
- metadat 3y ago
  We're a ways off from this happening, a much larger percentage of the general U.S.A. population needs to become discontent before re-evaluation will commence.
- defrost 3y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what Benjiman Franklin said at the time .. "It'll make do for now, but it'll wear thin with age and get ripped by despots" (paraphrased).
raincom 3y ago
If another circuit court sets an opposite precedent in a similar case, SCOTUS will take the case.
- infogulch 3y ago
  Oh! I was upset about them not taking the case at first, but a situation like you described may provide a better scenario to hear the arguments from both sides.
bruce511 3y ago
Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's not in one of the states mentioned. Also, to be clear, they haven't said he -is- liable, just that the case can proceed. It still has to be evaluated on merit. (at least at the lower court level.) Underlying all of this is the root issue that all to often protests, on both sides of the spectrum, contain violence and property destruction. All too often without any consequences. Does this create a chilling effect on protests? Absolutely. Will it mean more accountability for violence and destruction? Possibly. Would this encourage organisers to emphasise to followers the importance of -peaceful- protest? Maybe. (Will it incentivize false-flag activities? Probably.) I lean on the side of this being "bad" overall, but its a very nuanced issue.
fxd123 3y ago
> Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent It's not precedent "Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim"

Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent. Who can protest, if the risk is that someone/anyone at the protest does something illegal & you get the blame? Shame on this fucked up court system.

skhunted 3y ago

The Constitution badly needs a rewrite.

metadat 3y ago
We're a ways off from this happening, a much larger percentage of the general U.S.A. population needs to become discontent before re-evaluation will commence.
defrost 3y ago
That's pretty much exactly what Benjiman Franklin said at the time .. "It'll make do for now, but it'll wear thin with age and get ripped by despots" (paraphrased).

raincom 3y ago

If another circuit court sets an opposite precedent in a similar case, SCOTUS will take the case.

infogulch 3y ago
Oh! I was upset about them not taking the case at first, but a situation like you described may provide a better scenario to hear the arguments from both sides.

bruce511 3y ago

Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's not in one of the states mentioned. Also, to be clear, they haven't said he -is- liable, just that the case can proceed. It still has to be evaluated on merit. (at least at the lower court level.) Underlying all of this is the root issue that all to often protests, on both sides of the spectrum, contain violence and property destruction. All too often without any consequences. Does this create a chilling effect on protests? Absolutely. Will it mean more accountability for violence and destruction? Possibly. Would this encourage organisers to emphasise to followers the importance of -peaceful- protest? Maybe. (Will it incentivize false-flag activities? Probably.) I lean on the side of this being "bad" overall, but its a very nuanced issue.

fxd123 3y ago

> Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent It's not precedent "Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim"