Are conditions on pretrial release unconstitutional?

The same idiot who continually argued all of Trumps classified documents thefts were only subject to the Presidential Records Act and could not be charged in the way Jack Smith did, is now spreading his next in line, garbage.

First Amendment rights are not absolute, and they enjoy even less protections when a person is charged with serious crimes, as a result of their parole obligations.

Put another way, the State or Federal gov't is not required to give anyone parole. So it is an option to merely keep Trump (anyone) locked up until trial, and limit their access to media and devices. That is simple way to limit his freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech rights, and its 100% constitutional and effective.

So to argue lesser injunctions on a defendants 'association', 'movement' and 'speech' such as what the courts are doing now, is wrong and unconstitutional is just stupid, as the remedy then is simply to revoke bail and hold him pending trial, which is also constitutional, and could be done.

So the Courts offer the compromise of allowing a person to 'give up their passport', 'agree to not cross State lines', 'agree to not speak to any other defendants or taint a jury pool', which are all LESSOR injunctions, which is why the SC has found them Constitutional in their rulings.

And make no mistake, as the injunctions are done via COOPERATION with the defendant who has to acknowledge and AGREE to them as part of his terms of release. He could instead refuse and say i am taking these to the SC as my speech will not be limited in any way, and then fight it as he sits in jail. If that is his principled position then he can refuse and fight it. What he cannot do, is agree and then not comply.
 
Damocles said:
Every single one of the stories you've linked to has one person saying it. This one stems from the same statement your first two links pointed to. So, from what I can see, leftists do not like that Trump said something we don't agree with him on and while nobody in the mainstream (even the guys on Fox, though there are a few on this site posting in anonymity) are also saying it you thought you'd post with no links to anybody at all saying it and get a reaction. I'm cool with that, I'm just surprised how many folks will knee-jerk a "nuh-uh!" out there because you said it. LOL

I still say they react because it is you saying it. I honestly think you agree.
Click to expand...


You claimed nobody was saying it, I linked where both Trump and a poster on this board said it. I am sure I could find more people who said it. Im willing to bet Hannity and Tucker said it as well as more on this board. You were simply wrong.
 
QP! said:
The same idiot who continually argued all of Trumps classified documents thefts were only subject to the Presidential Records Act and could not be charged in the way Jack Smith did, is now spreading his next in line, garbage.

First Amendment rights are not absolute, and they enjoy even less protections when a person is charged with serious crimes, as a result of their parole obligations.

Put another way, the State or Federal gov't is not required to give anyone parole. So it is an option to merely keep Trump (anyone) locked up until trial, and limit their access to media and devices. That is simple way to limit his freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech rights, and its 100% constitutional and effective.

So to argue lesser injunctions on a defendants 'association', 'movement' and 'speech' such as what the courts are doing now, is wrong and unconstitutional is just stupid, as the remedy then is simply to revoke bail and hold him pending trial, which is also constitutional, and could be done.

So the Courts offer the compromise of allowing a person to 'give up their passport', 'agree to not cross State lines', 'agree to not speak to any other defendants or taint a jury pool', which are all LESSOR injunctions, which is why the SC has found them Constitutional in their rulings.

And make no mistake, as the injunctions are done via COOPERATION with the defendant who has to acknowledge and AGREE to them as part of his terms of release. He could instead refuse and say i am taking these to the SC as my speech will not be limited in any way, and then fight it as he sits in jail. If that is his principled position then he can refuse and fight it. What he cannot do, is agree and then not comply.
Click to expand...

LIKE!!!
 
Damocles said:
Every single one of the stories you've linked to has one person saying it. This one stems from the same statement your first two links pointed to. So, from what I can see, leftists do not like that Trump said something we don't agree with him on and while nobody in the mainstream (even the guys on Fox, though there are a few on this site posting in anonymity) are also saying it you thought you'd post with no links to anybody at all saying it and get a reaction. I'm cool with that, I'm just surprised how many folks will knee-jerk a "nuh-uh!" out there because you said it. LOL

I still say they react because it is you saying it. I honestly think you agree.
Click to expand...

Look at this thread...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...p-may-be-satisfying-But-it-isn%92t-constituti
 
Damocles said:
Every single one of the stories you've linked to has one person saying it. This one stems from the same statement your first two links pointed to. So, from what I can see, leftists do not like that Trump said something we don't agree with him on and while nobody in the mainstream (even the guys on Fox, though there are a few on this site posting in anonymity) are also saying it you thought you'd post with no links to anybody at all saying it and get a reaction.

I still say they react because it is you saying it. I honestly think you agree.
Click to expand...





Fuck you damo


That sentiment is all over the real world



You lost



What you have backed all your life turned out to be fucking trash form assholes with money used yo make you do their bidding



When will you admit how wrong you have been in all the decades we have been speaking





You turned out to be the fool


Admit it or forfeit all future respect




You were proven deeply wrong



Face reality
 
Damocles said:
The state does... not as a "right" per se, but tainting the pool can go either way, if the defendant can gag the prosecutor from using their soap box, the state can as well because the jury must be impartial and untainted. The trial rights come into play, the gags result from that.

Other reasons for gags. Scenario 1: If the defendant was like Charlie Manson and the press allowed him a soapbox during a trial to order his followers to do something... (this is the one that applies to the civil trial, if they believe that some of Trump's followers could use his post to find the target of his ire and "make them pay" by protesting outside their house, following them around, chanting, screaming, etc. then a gag would be reasonable).

Scenario 2: The defendant is famous and is using their fame to try to taint the pool of jurists before the trial starts while they are out on bail. (Gags have often been set in place because of this, the jury must be impartial for it to be a fair trial).

Scenario 3: The prosecutor could use their position to get interviews, using that ready made soap box they could taint the jury pool by using the "trial by press"...
Click to expand...

Could you point me to where the Constitution guarantees the State the right to a fair trial. I have read the 6th amendment and can't seem to find it.? You can't remove Trump's right to free speech which IS guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
cherry picking specifics in an effort to show your point doesn't work. It should be looked at as generically as possible. Damocles explained this very clearly in his post
Click to expand...

I didn't cherry pick anything. I asked for support of the contention that the STATE can silence criticism of itself.

That's not how gag orders work.

I'll again challenge ANYONE here to provide a direct quote where Trump threatened violence or financial harm of any witness in this (or any) case? The STATE is not immune to criticism. Not in free countries.

This order was specifically placed to stop Trump for criticizing Chutkin and her staff. North Korea forbids criticism of the government. America before Biden, when we had the Constitution, did not.
 
ExpressLane said:
Could you point me to where the Constitution guarantees the State the right to a fair trial. I have read the 6th amendment and can't seem to find it.? You can't remove Trump's right to free speech which IS guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the court cannot allow the defendant to taint jury pools and thus negate the defendant's own right to a fair trial... Courts have ruled in the past that the state has a right to a fair trial, the SCOTUS has never taken up the case even when asked which means they have allowed those rulings to stand. The constitution itself notes that rights exist that are not enumerated, we spend way too much time pretending that if they aren't there then they cannot exist, it simply is not true.

States rights exist, they're argued often. Until those rulings where courts have stated that the state has a right to a fair trial are overturned by the SCOTUS, and because SCOTUS turned down hearing cases in regard to this in the past thus signifying that the lower court ruling stands, we then get that this state right also exists.
 
Damocles said:
You said that the past (if it happened in the past) was relevant, if the one is relevant then the other (present) is also relevant to speak to whether it was actually necessary.
Click to expand...

It is only relevant that there be some evidence it could cause a dangerous situation. I do not think its necessary that there be more evidence of that it be proven that this particular case caused a dangerous situation. I think any reasonable person could see the danger here and that the "speech" was not particularly relevant or so important that it be protected.
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, the court cannot allow the defendant to taint jury pools and thus negate the defendant's own right to a fair trial... Courts have ruled in the past that the state has a right to a fair trial, the SCOTUS has never taken up the case even when asked which means they have allowed those rulings to stand. The constitution itself notes that rights exist that are not enumerated, we spend way too much time pretending that if they aren't there then they cannot exist, it simply is not true.

States rights exist, they're argued often. Until those rulings where courts have stated that the state has a right to a fair trial are overturned by the SCOTUS, and because SCOTUS turned down hearing cases in regard to this in the past thus signifying that the lower court ruling stands, we then get that this state right also exists.
Click to expand...

dude.

fuck all this.

you're so corrupted.

state's right to a fair trial?

really?

and corporations are people.

you have become a full on fascist.

im sorry.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not arguing, seriously, I'm not. If the defendant has crazies who follow him that can take that image he posted and stalk the crap out of them, and who have done something like that in the past, I get it.

I'm just noting that is where the questions emerge from. I don't think anyone is shocked by a gag during a criminal trial where there is a jury, we even understand why those happen. The legal argument offered by the law professor in the dude's original post emerged from that same question.

Now do we have any evidence that this employee has had any issues since he posted that statement?
Click to expand...


I've seen a lot of stalking by crazies when Maxine Waters incited violence against Americans, Wasserman-Shultz demanding violence. Biden saying to "beat the shit" out of Trump supporters.

But I've not seen reports of decent Americans, Trump supporters, harassing democrats in restaurants, or defacing houses and cars the way democrats do to Americans? Do you have examples of Trump supporters stalking anyone?

No legitimate government prohibits criticism of itself and its policies. Any government that forcibly silences voices critical of itself is a tyranny, by definition.
 
Jarod said:
It is only relevant that there be some evidence it could cause a dangerous situation. I do not think its necessary that there be more evidence of that it be proven that this particular case caused a dangerous situation. I think any reasonable person could see the danger here and that the "speech" was not particularly relevant or so important that it be protected.
Click to expand...

I do not believe so, if there was a danger and the cat was already out of the bag such predictions would have come to fruition. It matters. If the folks you think so little of did not act in the way you said they would, do you think you should think better of them or less of yourself?
 
Damocles said:
I do not believe so, if there was a danger and the cat was already out of the bag such predictions would have come to fruition. It matters. If the folks you think so little of did not act in the way you said they would, do you think you should think better of them or less of yourself?
Click to expand...

I already know how they have acted in the recent past. I know that restricting the former President from attacking a clerk over non-relevant issues is minor compared to what could happen if such restrictions are in place.

If the clerk had done something with regard to the case prejudicing Trump and he posted about it, that would be a different story.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I've seen a lot of stalking by crazies when Maxine Waters incited violence against Americans, Wasserman-Shultz demanding violence. Biden saying to "beat the shit" out of Trump supporters.

But I've not seen reports of decent Americans, Trump supporters, harassing democrats in restaurants, or defacing houses and cars the way democrats do to Americans? Do you have examples of Trump supporters stalking anyone?

No legitimate government prohibits criticism of itself and its policies. Any government that forcibly silences voices critical of itself is a tyranny, by definition.
Click to expand...

Right, this was why I asked the question. They assumed that Trump supporters would act in a certain way, when such action didn't happen they receive no apology from the accusers. I asked a question of Jarod, now that we know that cat was out of the bag and that the predictions were not coming to fruition... should the folks who predicted they would act like angry democrats in front of a SCOTUS house apologize, and should they think better of the folks they thought so little of or should they think less of themselves instead?
 
Jarod said:
I already know how they have acted in the recent past. I know that restricting the former President from attacking a clerk over non-relevant issues is minor compared to what could happen if such restrictions are in place.

If the clerk had done something with regard to the case prejudicing Trump and he posted about it, that would be a different story.
Click to expand...

So you think you should ignore that the prediction was false and pretend that it was real regardless of evidence at hand. I get that, introspection can get you uncomfortable at times.

I already noted that I can see where the gag order came from, but I am also willing to admit I thought poorly of folks that acted better than I expected even so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top