Posted on 09/23/2021 12:50:42 PM PDT by A.M. Smith
“Would they threaten to arrest someone with a BLM or LGBTQ hat?”
Of course not. Official repression is for conservatives.
I can’t even figure out what the arguments would be under the 4th and 5th. The caselaw on the 1st permits reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech, and limiting it within close proximity to a polling place seems like the exact time, place and manner of which the Court would approve.
What’s political about “Black Lives Matter”?
While working an election we had to tell 1 or 2 people to remove a garment before entering to vote. Usually they are out and about and stop in for early voting.
One of my Karen bosses, a male, made the library move their voting information table, which was not close to the entrance, because it was barely inside the 500 ft line. He probably would have been livid if he knew I was ccw the whole time.
Of course they are.
But when have facts, truth, hard data and rational thought ever mattered to Lefties?
All that matters to them is gaining and keeping power.
The entire system will eventually implode b/c societies cannot be built or maintained upon a system of lies - which is exactly why the old Soviet Union eventually exploded from the inside out.
Unfortunately, a lot of people had to die (up to 100 million, no one will ever know, low estimates are 60 million, a staggering number) before the system started to right itself.
Trying to convince lefties of anything is a lost cause. But there still are enough people in the persuadable middle to create a majority. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t hurt our own credibility with them by pushing easily discredited arguments based on false facts.
Holy crap! What a complete moron! Good for you for standing up to that imbecile. Most would just cower. I probably wouldn’t be so assertive with my own rights if my dad hadn’t been a bad azz District Court Judge.
Oh... well, in THAT case I would have cried "Mommy 353FMG, please saaaave me!" 🤪
So the court "interprets" the 1rst amendment to allow for the restriction of speech near polling places. I don't interpret it that way, it seems pretty open ended to me, but hearing that the courts interpret it that way makes sense of what we are seeing now.
Therefore illegal seizure wouldn't come into play either because if the court is going to restrict one amendment on a particular point, they wouldn't indulge another amendment to overturn what they've already decided.
Thank you for your courteous and informative response.
If you view the First Amendment as absolute, then you could have a spectator during a trial simply stand up and start screaming whatever, because that's their First Amendment right. Disrupt a trial indefinitely. Or literally people just screaming in the middle of the polling place urging votes for one candidate or another. Imagine 15-20 orchestrating that in a single polling place just to disrupt it.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have a long history, and general have been approved - if carefully limited - by the Supreme Court. Even for polling places, the prohibited area has to be small, and it is meant to prevent voter intimidation and prospective voters waiting in line being forced to listened to someone haranguing them. Also to promote the idea that a polling place is a "neutral" location not biased for or against a particular candidate.
If you have an issue with that, fine. I don't, and think it is a reasonable, very limited restriction.
As someone who has worked several years at a polling site, IT IS LEGAL for a VOTER, not a worker.
A voter, in my state anyway, can wear candidate clothing. But only to vote and leave. Cannot be there hanging around talking to others.
Is there a constitutional requirement that a trial be open to the public? Some years back I read an argument asserting that the "right to associate" implies a right to disassociate. Meaning you can exclude people whom you don't want there.
Also, Judges have the authority to issue contempt orders, so you may be able to speak, but a judge can have you arrested for disrupting his court proceeding.
Or literally people just screaming in the middle of the polling place urging votes for one candidate or another.
Democracy can be messy. Ever watch a house of commons debate?
Time, place, and manner restrictions have a long history, and general have been approved - if carefully limited - by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme court has made a lot of boners over the years. Even though they are the "official" authority, I do not trust their ability to interpret the constitution correctly.
If you have an issue with that, fine. I don't, and think it is a reasonable, very limited restriction.
I think it's all a matter of how finely you want to slice a hair. I notice the courts are all about fine hair slicing on some subjects and happy to allow very broad meanings in others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.