A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constituti

martin said:
They get it from the top crybaby himself. Has there ever been a bigger case of it on the national stage than Trump's crybaby hysterics at getting wiped out in the 2020 election? He lost by the same electoral college 302/238 margin he called "a landslide" when
he defeated Hillary.
Click to expand...

Conditions on Trump pretrial release are unconstitutional, but for regular people it’s ok.
 
martin said:
Was he speaking in a context of the only apparent intent of the speech being intimidation of and/or bodily harm to government officials?
Click to expand...

Read the article in his opinion the SC has already ruled on this type of issue. The government can't gag you because you hurt their wittle feelings :(
 
Concart said:
Good luck with SCOTUS. You'll need it. I doubt they will even hear the case, the argument is so incredibly stupid. The rest of this discussion is an utter waste of time. The Trump cult are the biggest whiny crybabies I've ever encountered.
Click to expand...
Cruz said Trump should just ignore the gag order. He doubts she will have Trump arrested but if she does he thinks it will be swatted down in a matter of hours. Think about the amount of free press Trump would get.It would be HUGE. :laugh: You need to deliver some tatter tots before they get cold. You know how Uber Eats hates that.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Least according to one Erwin Chemerinsky, who also defends those demonstrating for Hamas on the same principle, bet you wouldn’t agree with him on that one (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article280597364.html)

Erwin is a free speech advocate, regardless of the specific circumstances, of course he would think the gag order violates the First Amendment, obviously, the Judge doesn’t, and fact remains if it were any other person other than your Messiah that person wouldn’t be subject to just a $5,000 fine

Bottom line, the MAGA militia truly believes Trump is above all law, that if he did shoot someone on 5th Ave in daylight they would still vote for him regardless
Click to expand...

They Absolutely have a right to protest for Hamas. As long as they are not physically violent.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump commits so many crimes in public. He has done what no court can allow. You try creaming the court system, judges, and jurors in public, then you will have to clear out your schedule for jail time. Trump is doing what no person can be allowed to do.
Click to expand...
:rofl2:
 
ExpressLane said:
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.
Click to expand...


The federal government has NO authority to ban or limit speech. That includes a federal judge.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump commits so many crimes in public. He has done what no court can allow. You try creaming the court system, judges, and jurors in public, then you will have to clear out your schedule for jail time. Trump is doing what no person can be allowed to do.
Click to expand...

No crime.
 
domer76 said:
Here’s what Chemerinsky left out regarding the extraordinary and compelling argument.

What’s extraordinary? That the person we’re talking about isn’t just your average paper or reporter. He’s the ex-President of the United States and leading candidate. He has a voice much louder and stronger than almost anyone else.

What’s compelling? It’s well known and been reported by many people, including another previous presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, that when Trump starts targeting individuals with his vitriol, the death threats start pouring in. Judges have experienced it. Lawyers have experienced it. Members of Congress have experienced it.

There’s the extraordinary and compelling. Easy argument to make. Easy gag order to withstand challenge.
Click to expand...
So you think you know more that a constitutional Law expert ?

:facepalm:
 
martin said:
Publication of the Pentagon Papers served a public purpose and put no one's personal safety at risk. We'll see if shutting up a criminal defendant from inciting violence against the court in which he is being tried falls into that category. Maybe it does. There's an obvious argument it does not.
Click to expand...

Trump is not inciting anything.
 
archives said:
He might be on Constitutional theory, but not necessarily on its application, and as I showed you, he also defends those demonstrating for Hamas on the same principle, you telling us now that you think he is he is 100% correct there also because he is qualified and an expert? (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed...280597364.html)

Erwin is a free speech advocate, regardless of the specific circumstances, of course he would think the gag order violates the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean his opinion is infallible
Click to expand...
So you are anti free speech :eyeroll: BTW: Your linky no worky.
 
domer76 said:
Here’s what Chemerinsky left out regarding the extraordinary and compelling argument.

What’s extraordinary? That the person we’re talking about isn’t just your average paper or reporter. He’s the ex-President of the United States and leading candidate. He has a voice much louder and stronger than almost anyone else.

What’s compelling? It’s well known and been reported by many people, including another previous presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, that when Trump starts targeting individuals with his vitriol, the death threats start pouring in. Judges have experienced it. Lawyers have experienced it. Members of Congress have experienced it.

There’s the extraordinary and compelling. Easy argument to make. Easy gag order to withstand challenge.
Click to expand...

An unconstitutional argument.
 
archives said:
He might be on Constitutional theory, but not necessarily on its application, and as I showed you, he also defends those demonstrating for Hamas on the same principle, you telling us now that you think he is he is 100% correct there also because he is qualified and an expert? (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed...280597364.html)

Erwin is a free speech advocate, regardless of the specific circumstances, of course he would think the gag order violates the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean his opinion is infallible
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not a theory, Anchovies. It's law. The 1st amendment is part of that law. A federal judge has NO authority to change the Constitution.
 
ExpressLane said:
So you think you know more that a constitutional Law expert ?

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

There are plenty of other experts that will disagree with him. Others on this very thread have described his background. How many SCOTUS opinions are 5-4? All “experts”, right? His opinion is just that and may or may not be valid.

He was silent on the extraordinary and compelling issue, wasn’t he? He didn’t address the death threats against people that Trump targets, did he? He silent on the issue of an ex-President vs a mere reporter or newspaper, wasn’t he?
 
derp76 said:
There are plenty of other experts that will disagree with him. Others on this very thread have described his background. How many SCOTUS opinions are 5-4? All “experts”, right? His opinion is just that and may or may not be valid.

He was silent on the extraordinary and compelling issue, wasn’t he? He didn’t address the death threats against people that Trump targets, did he? He silent on the issue of an ex-President vs a mere reporter or newspaper, wasn’t he?
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS has a conservative majority and freespech is a very conservative issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top