Posted on 01/11/2021 6:09:02 AM PST by Onthebrink
In America, our constitutional rights are sacred. They lie at the heart of our republic, and all governments actors must respect them. But what if government officials could violate our rights without any legal consequences?
That’s exactly what happened outside of Atlanta, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in Alliance Defending Freedom’s case, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, on Jan. 12.
Chike Uzuegbunam was a student at Georgia Gwinnett College. During his time in college, Chike became a very passionate Christian. This changed his life for the better, and he wanted to share that same joy with others. So, like many college students, he shared his passion with passersby in an open area of campus.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
SCOTUS to decide whether constitutional rights exist....................................
I honestly thought this was a Babylon Bee headline.
Of course they can. The public are sheep. They will comply. The Dems apply the constitution unevenly, and no one seems to care.
Wrong answer. Ordering the government to pay nominal damages punishes the taxpayers, not the individuals responsible for violating someone's rights. The judges, the college boards and administrations, the little wanker students who launch attacks are the ones who should have to pay. Leftists will continue to attack because after the victim has to go through the court system (time and money on his/her part), it's the “government” that has to pay and politicians have no problem squandering tax dollars.
Ergo, sap-happy Democrats:
<><> intend to Classify peaceable MAGA Rallies of tax-paying Americans As "Domestic Terrorist Activity"
<><> would punish a Christian for sharing his experiences in an open public space.
Ergo, sap-happy Democrats:
<><> intend to Classify peaceable MAGA Rallies of tax-paying Americans As "Domestic Terrorist Activity"
<><> would punish a Christian for sharing his experiences in an open public space.
Certain people’s rights may be ignored without consequence. We already see that.
>>This is why courts must order the government to pay nominal damages to plaintiffs like Chike. Nominal damages redress a constitutional injury when a plaintiff is unable or does not want to put a dollar figure on a lost right, and we need nominal-damages awards to ensure that our rights are scrupulously observed. If citizens cannot obtain meaningful redress when the government acts unlawfully, our rights will be violated more frequently. A right that cannot be enforced is no right at all.
Even this has problematic aspects. The government functionaries who violated his rights will be paying any settlement with taxpayer dollars. There is no real individual consequence for those who violated his rights.
When do you cross the line from an inadvertent violation that shouldn’t result in individual liability, to a clear crossing of lines where there should be some personal pain for those who used their position of power to violate this man’s rights?
I believe this case crosses that line, and that individual fines and sanction should accrue.
The next big case comes when Americans sue big tech over free speech.
They can be violated, but in a rational society they are absolute and cannot be taken away. Thus, the people have a perfect right to try to stop the violation.
I’d like the courts to see Free Speech more like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Can the government discriminate against people based on skin color and other characteristics? No.
Can business discriminate against people based on skin color and other characteristics? No.
Can the government restrict your Freedom of Speech? No.
Can business restrict your freedom of Speech? Oh, hell yeah!!!
Not good.
“I honestly thought this was a Babylon Bee headline.”
Seriously, so did I. This country has become a madhouse.
The Supreme Court became court jesters after they refused the Texas case. Anything they say or do from now on is basically a joke, whether it be just or not.
I must say I love to fantasize about how this could all turn around. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the conservative justices would band together and force Roberts to resign, then reconsider the Texas case? Getting back to reality, I believe it would snow in Hell first.
Did they reject Trumps request to expedite case on vote fraud?
So did I. That's a laugh, after their despicable refusal to hear any of Trump's cases, that the Supreme Court rule on whether constitutional rights can be violated without consequence. They deprived Trump of his right to have his cases tried without consequence. They deprived all of US our constitutional right to have an honest election, and they're still collecting their paychecks. Hypocrites.
“Did they reject Trumps request to expedite case on vote fraud?”
You have a very good question. I have a memory of there being such cases sent to the SC that are not to be considered until after Jan 6th, and I believe Trump’s is one of them. I also believe there is a Powell case there too. Possibly others.
With the Texas case the lame excuse of no standing was used.
With the cases mentioned above, they will likely say congress accepting the electors on Jan 6th makes those cases moot and throw them out. Should that be the case, then there is no day in court for Trump or his supporters. No one wants to review the evidence, carefully consider it and render a decision based on fact. What they want to do is summarily dismiss cases by claiming there is no basis, no evidence or the evidence is false without any actual review.
It’s all an effing joke.
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.