Civil liberties thread

[neoplacebo]

IMNVHO, it's better to drop it than to lose it, which I think they very likely would.

I agree; there's no way the DOJ could have won this. All the defense would have to do is point out the always enhanced security envelope that automatically and perpetually attends to the person of the president......when he travels in a car, streets are closed to the public.....when he's in a plane, any intrusion into the immediate airspace is promptly investigated by military fighter jets........and this spur of the moment jaunt across the street, by established and long standing precedent, required the clearing of any bodies that are in his way, regardless of who they are.

[Vrede too]

I'm sure the ACLU et. al. sees it as an egregious affront that can't be let stand without challenge. For sake of discussion, I see it like a medical malpractice suit. Lots of med mal suits get filed, but only those cases where somebody dies or gets seriously disabled or deformed win much. And lots more never make it to litigation just because of the low chances of winning. Trump provided hundreds of opportunities for lawsuits. Pick your battles carefully.

The battle has already been picked and I'm okay with that. It was a very ugly episode where citizens and media were repressed and physically harmed by both the military and LEOs just so that 45SHOLE could get a photo op holding a Buybull upside down. If there isn't 1st Amendment accountability for this, there can't be for anything.

Is Joe really contemplating a similar stunt? If so, .

[Vrede too]

U.S. government seeks to dismiss suit against Trump, Washington Post says

I agree; there's no way the DOJ could have won this. All the defense would have to do is point out the always enhanced security envelope that automatically and perpetually attends to the person of the president......when he travels in a car, streets are closed to the public.....when he's in a plane, any intrusion into the immediate airspace is promptly investigated by military fighter jets........and this spur of the moment jaunt across the street, by established and long standing precedent, required the clearing of any bodies that are in his way, regardless of who they are.

It's the ACLU suing, not the DOJ, and I hope the Constitution doesn't automatically get suspended for a bad POTUS' ego and convenience.

[O Really]

... And unlike most civil actions, the goal may not be to win and get a cash settlement, but rather to expose the malfeasance under the magnifying glass of a sensational trial.

I'm pretty sure Trump's malfeasance has been exposed in hundreds of ways, many in instances far worse than this incident. I'm not saying his bible stunt wasn't deplorable, and maybe if I were the judge I wouldn't dismiss the suit. But I am saying that asking for dismissal doesn't mean Biden's bunch approves of the actions taken in Trump's stunt.

[O Really]

Besides, if the lawsuit goes forward, Biden's bunch will have to defend it. Maybe they'd rather it go away than being in the position of defending the indefensible.

[Ulysses]

Besides, if the lawsuit goes forward, Biden's bunch will have to defend it. Maybe they'd rather it go away than being in the position of defending the indefensible.

There is that.

[Vrede too]

Besides, if the lawsuit goes forward, Biden's bunch will have to defend it. Maybe they'd rather it go away than being in the position of defending the indefensible.

It's the govt being sued by the ACLU, and asking for a dismissal is the DOJ taking the same side as it will if this goes to trial, unless it reverses former PINO's anti-peaceful protest position. It could just agree that clearing Lafayette Park on 6/1/2020 was wrong, and could even ID narrow reasons that protect legit POTUS movement in the future.

You and neoplacebo seemed to side with former defense secretary James Mattis last year. What changed?

Republicans (mostly) side with Dickless Don over Mattis's criticism of Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics ... index.html

Mattis is probably part of the deep state, now. Or something.

Republican senators shrug off Mattis' criticism of Trump: 'It's his opinion'

... Mattis excoriated Trump's decision to hold a photo-op Monday at a church near the White House, saying troops were ordered to "violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens" who were protesting but were cleared out by police with force to make way for the President's visit....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&p=121255#p121255

Yeah, more of the ol' "disgruntled employee" bit. Don't they ever wonder why being disgruntled makes their story any less true? Or if they are disgruntled, why are they? And did the employer hire them disgruntled or make them disgruntled? Do only gruntled employees get to criticize?

Absolutely pickle Rick damn right. I've never been disgruntled without reason and by pickle Rick when I get disgruntled it isn't just for the hell of it. My disgruntlement has to be earned.....and un gruntled in a way that disgruntles the objects of my initial disgruntlement. ok

[O Really]

Besides, if the lawsuit goes forward, Biden's bunch will have to defend it. Maybe they'd rather it go away than being in the position of defending the indefensible.

It's the govt being sued by the ACLU, and asking for a dismissal is the DOJ taking the same side as it will if this goes to trial, unless it reverses former PINO's anti-peaceful protest position. It could just agree that clearing Lafayette Park on 6/1/2020 was wrong, and could even ID narrow reasons that protect legit POTUS movement in the future.

You and neoplacebo seemed to side with former defense secretary James Mattis last year. What changed?

Whether happily or with their noses firmly held, DOJ attorneys are obligated to defend the government. To fail to provide the best defence they can puts their bar licence at risk - or at least risks an official scolding. Moving for dismissal on some legal grounds not necessarily related to the validity of the plaintiff's claim is very often the first step in that defence. Anyway, that motion certainly will not be the end of the matter, no matter the ruling.

[Vrede too]

Whether happily or with their noses firmly held, DOJ attorneys are obligated to defend the government. To fail to provide the best defence they can puts their bar licence at risk - or at least risks an official scolding. Moving for dismissal on some legal grounds not necessarily related to the validity of the plaintiff's claim is very often the first step in that defence. Anyway, that motion certainly will not be the end of the matter, no matter the ruling.

True, but a new admin can deem a prior admin's constitutional interpretation flawed and its actions abhorrent, and I'm sure that Joe and Garland are doing that on multiple issues.

[O Really]

True, but a new admin can deem a prior admin's constitutional interpretation flawed and its actions abhorrent, and I'm sure that Joe and Garland are doing that on multiple issues.

Declaring the actions abhorrent is one thing; finding the constitutional interpretation flawed is probably a bit sticky in this incident. Oversimplified, they're saying a President (or even a President*) can move anywhere he wants and is entitled to have his path cleared and his presence secured. I'm guessing that's probably a sound interpretation and doesn't change just because the President* is a narcissistic asshole who wants a photo op.

[Vrede too]

Declaring the actions abhorrent is one thing; finding the constitutional interpretation flawed is probably a bit sticky in this incident. Oversimplified, they're saying a President (or even a President*) can move anywhere he wants and is entitled to have his path cleared and his presence secured. I'm guessing that's probably a sound interpretation and doesn't change just because the President* is a narcissistic asshole who wants a photo op.

We'll have to see what the courts say. I'm with the ACLU, Mattis, and June 4, 2020 O Really and neoplacebo - A POTUS can't suddenly and violently employ the military and LEOs on a whim to suspend the Constitution vs peaceful protestors any more than Sheriff Bubba can. It's not even like they were there to block POTUS freedom of movement, or like a motorcade wouldn't have worked just fine. Brutal govt repression was the whole point.

[neoplacebo]

Besides, if the lawsuit goes forward, Biden's bunch will have to defend it. Maybe they'd rather it go away than being in the position of defending the indefensible.

It's the govt being sued by the ACLU, and asking for a dismissal is the DOJ taking the same side as it will if this goes to trial, unless it reverses former PINO's anti-peaceful protest position. It could just agree that clearing Lafayette Park on 6/1/2020 was wrong, and could even ID narrow reasons that protect legit POTUS movement in the future.

You and neoplacebo seemed to side with former defense secretary James Mattis last year. What changed?

Whether happily or with their noses firmly held, DOJ attorneys are obligated to defend the government. To fail to provide the best defence they can puts their bar licence at risk - or at least risks an official scolding. Moving for dismissal on some legal grounds not necessarily related to the validity of the plaintiff's claim is very often the first step in that defence. Anyway, that motion certainly will not be the end of the matter, no matter the ruling.

What changed? Nothing as far as I can see. I'm just saying that in this strut across the street, hold the bible upside down, have your picture made to document the lunacy, and have your security apparatus clear the way in advance situation, the precedent of maintaining a ludicrous security envelope around whoever is the president will preclude any successful legal challenge to that setup whether it's the DOJ, the ACLU, the KKK, or the NCAA making a case against it; they will lose.

[O Really]

We'll see. And nobody would cheer any louder than me if they actually did get Trump and his scum to trial and got a favorable decision. But I'm not holding my breath. Compared to many other things Trump has done, getting some people chased off the street is pretty much a party foul, unconstitutional or not.

[Vrede too]

We'll see. And nobody would cheer any louder than me if they actually did get Trump and his scum to trial and got a favorable decision. But I'm not holding my breath. Compared to many other things Trump has done, getting some people chased off the street is pretty much a party foul, unconstitutional or not.

I think you were correct earlier about one thing, but I'm not sure. It would be the current DoJ that fights the ACLU. If it chooses not to, the Dolt .45 team is no longer liable and the current DoJ could either seek a settlement or await a judgment.

[O Really]

We'll see. And nobody would cheer any louder than me if they actually did get Trump and his scum to trial and got a favorable decision. But I'm not holding my breath. Compared to many other things Trump has done, getting some people chased off the street is pretty much a party foul, unconstitutional or not.

I think you were correct earlier about one thing, but I'm not sure. It would be the current DoJ that fights the ACLU. If it chooses not to, the Dolt .45 team is no longer liable and the current DoJ could either seek a settlement or await a judgment.

Sure they could - and should - try to settle, unlikely as that might be. But they can't refuse to defend if the case proceeds. And you wouldn't want them to.

[Vrede too]

Sure they could - and should - try to settle, unlikely as that might be. But they can't refuse to defend if the case proceeds. And you wouldn't want them to.

What prevents Garland from informing the judge that DoJ now believes that the ACLU and Mattis are right and Barr and 45SHOLE were wrong? That IS what I would want him to do.

[Ulysses]

Sure they could - and should - try to settle, unlikely as that might be. But they can't refuse to defend if the case proceeds. And you wouldn't want them to.

What prevents Garland from informing the judge that DoJ now believes that the ACLU and Mattis are right and Barr and 45SHOLE were wrong? That IS what I would want him to do.

Good question.

[O Really]

Not that I know, but I'm guessing it's because what's being challenged is whether a particular action (getting cops to chase protesters off certain streets) is legal or whether it violates citizens rights under the Constitution. This is different from a challenge to a particular law, such as the DOMA challenge which said "DOMA is unconstitutional" and the DOJ could (and did) say "we agree." This is more dependent on evaluation of facts and circumstances in light of applicable law, so even if the DOJ did say it agreed with the ACLU position, it doesn't mean the judge would also agree - and s/he might not.

[Vrede too]

Not that I know, but I'm guessing it's because what's being challenged is whether a particular action (getting cops to chase protesters off certain streets) is legal or whether it violates citizens rights under the Constitution. This is different from a challenge to a particular law, such as the DOMA challenge which said "DOMA is unconstitutional" and the DOJ could (and did) say "we agree." This is more dependent on evaluation of facts and circumstances in light of applicable law, so even if the DOJ did say it agreed with the ACLU position, it doesn't mean the judge would also agree - and s/he might not.

I'd be okay with Joe and Garland defining their rejection of former PINO narrowly and I get that the judge might still disagree, but their betrayal hurts . 6/1/20 was an awful day.

[O Really]

Not that I know, but I'm guessing it's because what's being challenged is whether a particular action (getting cops to chase protesters off certain streets) is legal or whether it violates citizens rights under the Constitution. This is different from a challenge to a particular law, such as the DOMA challenge which said "DOMA is unconstitutional" and the DOJ could (and did) say "we agree." This is more dependent on evaluation of facts and circumstances in light of applicable law, so even if the DOJ did say it agreed with the ACLU position, it doesn't mean the judge would also agree - and s/he might not.

I'd be okay with Joe and Garland defining their rejection of former PINO narrowly and I get that the judge might still disagree, but their betrayal hurts . 6/1/20 was an awful day.

There's no "betrayal." There's only a strategy followed in what they may believe (rightly or wrongly) is the best way to deal with the lawsuit. If they said, for example, "what Trump did was awful, evil, bigly bad, but didn't reach the level of violation of Constitutional rights," then they'll still have to defend the ACLU claim that it was a violation. It's just one more case on a tall stack.