15 votes

Trump Ignores Court Ruling That He Can't Block Twitter Critics: 'President Thinks He's Above The Law'

9 comments

  1. Kronk
    Link
    He hasn't really been listening to the courts to begin with, unless they say what he likes which is very rare in present day. I guess it doesn't surprise me that he thinks they he can just ignore...

    He hasn't really been listening to the courts to begin with, unless they say what he likes which is very rare in present day. I guess it doesn't surprise me that he thinks they he can just ignore something he doesn't like, since that's how its been most his life.

    I think what's really interesting though is that because of him, we have now defined any personal account related to US government officials as public forums. That will likely have some pretty big impacts down the road, although I don't know if it's a net positive or negative.

    8 votes
  2. [7]
    Cody
    Link
    I'm starting to wonder if the US Justice System was not prepared for someone to be President and literally not care about ethics? Like Bill Maher was saying on his show last week, what are the...

    I'm starting to wonder if the US Justice System was not prepared for someone to be President and literally not care about ethics? Like Bill Maher was saying on his show last week, what are the actual consequences for Trump? I feel like Mueller is the only person who could stop him at this point, but he could technically still be fired by Trump. There's so many questions that are up in the air when none of what he's doing has any precedent.

    7 votes
    1. [4]
      Kronk
      Link Parent
      I've heard it summed up that "the founding fathers" were operating under the BIG assumption that most people in office/political position would operate under good-faith (to at least uphold the...

      I've heard it summed up that "the founding fathers" were operating under the BIG assumption that most people in office/political position would operate under good-faith (to at least uphold the Constitution), and the few bad actors would be dealt with per provided rules. We're on the opposite end of that now, where almost everyone is operating under bad-faith and they've gotten rid of the few operating in good-faith.

      4 votes
      1. DtheS
        Link Parent
        I was thinking about this the other day. You know where I think it went wrong? The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. The reality is that the population cannot be truly represented anymore due...

        I was thinking about this the other day. You know where I think it went wrong? The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. The reality is that the population cannot be truly represented anymore due to the gross amount of constituents each congressman is responsible for. Granted, having thousands of members of congress would be unwieldy, but it would clean up so many issues. It would potentially clear up the disproportional effects of FPTP as each district would be much smaller. It would also give a chance for a multiparty system as some districts might be single-issue focused and more likely to vote in a single-issue party member. Likewise, it might help with gerrymandering problems, given that the smaller size of each district would be prohibitive in how unruly its borders could be. (Although, with enough effort, you could still gerrymander.)

        Anyway, that's just my two cents.

        4 votes
      2. [2]
        Houdini111
        Link Parent
        Yeah. I don't think any governing system would be able to handle stuff like is going on now.

        Yeah. I don't think any governing system would be able to handle stuff like is going on now.

        2 votes
        1. Qis
          Link Parent
          Which isn't to say that we shouldn't have a governing system, as some people might like to say! We need to come together and rebuild.

          Which isn't to say that we shouldn't have a governing system, as some people might like to say! We need to come together and rebuild.

    2. [2]
      lucyinthesky
      Link Parent
      If were to Trump fire Mueller that would be yet another clear obstruction of justice. Is there anything that could be done if that were to happen? There's plenty of evidence against Trump, can't...

      If were to Trump fire Mueller that would be yet another clear obstruction of justice. Is there anything that could be done if that were to happen? There's plenty of evidence against Trump, can't someone just indict him?

      1. Silbern
        Link Parent
        That's unknown from a legal perspective; I think it was somewhere in the Constitution, or maybe a Supreme Court case, that explicitly said the president can't be charged with minor crimes or those...

        There's plenty of evidence against Trump, can't someone just indict him?

        That's unknown from a legal perspective; I think it was somewhere in the Constitution, or maybe a Supreme Court case, that explicitly said the president can't be charged with minor crimes or those relating to his duties (i.e he can't be charged for a political mistake). The problem is no one is sure whether that extends to crimes before he became president, how severe the crime would have be, and whether it goes straight to the Supreme Court or not. Many people are working with the assumption he can't be charged at all, only impeached, which would obviously require a super majority of both houses of congress, and that's almost certainly not going to happen before the next presidential election.

        1 vote
  3. sparks88
    Link
    It took some mental gymnastics for me to try to wrap my head around how the court got to their decision. The judge says that Trump's Twitter is a public space curated by the government, like a...

    It took some mental gymnastics for me to try to wrap my head around how the court got to their decision.

    The judge says that Trump's Twitter is a public space curated by the government, like a park. Therefore the government can't exclude specific people from it for their speech. So just like my city can't deny neo-nazis the right to exercise their right to speech simply because they are neo-nazis.

    That logic seems a bit stretched to me. When the president blocks someone on twitter, their mentions no longer show up when people look for things associated with him. To me this feels more like controlling who gets in to your political rally. Politicians need to be careful about what comments they associate themselves with, even by proximity. While Trump says lots of things people don't like, he also certainly has forms of speech he doesn't want to associate with himself.

    Here's the thing - I hate Donald Trump. And I love free speech. I just don't buy that these people's speech has really been curtailed.

    1 vote