FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court

@parados,

parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What's your point?

That government should make sure that anyone and everyone should be able to be heard by 500,000 people?

My point is the government shouldn't choose who gets to speak to 500,000 based on who pays the government the most money.

But is this what the government is basing their decision on?

1 Reply

@NotreDame05,

Quote:

I am suggesting an inherent quality of radio waves is the limited capacity. Radio waves can only support so much traffic. Once the traffic reaches a critical point, using them becomes problematic, and difficult to transmit a program, message, or speech.

Parks also have a limited capacity. But groups can take turns using that park.

Quote:

Let's suppose they can't and consequently, some will use the park but others will not.

Why should we suppose something isn't true? Why don't we suppose that aliens from outerspace have increased our ability to broadcast on the radio but the government won't let certain groups broadcast? Your argument is silly at this point ND.

Quote:

A perpetual denial by the government to grant a license to person A does not by itself, without more, constitute as an infringement upon free speech.

It does mean that the government grants some persons the license to speak louder. A point you seem to ignore in your argument.
Let's assume a government supports large newspapers that print what they want but allows small newspapers that have no readers to print what the government is trying to hide. Does such a country have free speech? Are you willing to argue that the USSR had free speech?

1 Reply

@NotreDame05,

NotreDame05 wrote:

But is this what the government is basing their decision on?

So the result has no legal bearing if the intent wasn't there? Where do you get that argument from?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

My point is the government shouldn't choose who gets to speak to 500,000 based on who pays the government the most money.

So what is your alternative plan?

0 Replies

@parados,

NotreDame05 wrote:

But is this what the government is basing their decision on?

parados wrote:

So the result has no legal bearing if the intent wasn't there?
Where do you get that argument from?

The words shoud not be twisted in distorted interpretation
to achieve a result contrary to their original intendment.

Such misrepresentation of the original intent is LIBERALISM and is not legitimate.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I am suggesting an inherent quality of radio waves is the limited capacity. Radio waves can only support so much traffic. Once the traffic reaches a critical point, using them becomes problematic, and difficult to transmit a program, message, or speech.

Parks also have a limited capacity. But groups can take turns using that park.

Quote:

Let's suppose they can't and consequently, some will use the park but others will not.

Quote:
A perpetual denial by the government to grant a license to person A does not by itself, without more, constitute as an infringement upon free speech.

Quote:

Why should we suppose something isn't true? Why don't we suppose that aliens from outerspace have increased our ability to broadcast on the radio but the government won't let certain groups broadcast? Your argument is silly at this point ND.

I suppose the notion of a hypothetical escapes you? With a hypothetical, a fictional situation is conjured and when using it to make a point about a situation in real life, the hypothetical needs to possess as many of the characteristics as the real life scenario. My hypothetical is parallel to what we are discussing, which is not all groups will have access to the park (not all people have access to radio waves), as a result of practicalities unrelated to speech (not enough room or time to accommodate them in the park).

The fact you do not believe the hypothetical will ever occur in reality (the hypothetical has occurred in the past and I am confident it will in the future) is irrelevant and changing the hypothetical to the extent all groups will have access to the park renders the hypothetical no longer parallel to what we are discussing, which does not make any senes. There isn't anything wrong with the hypothetical but your commentary on the hypothetical is what is silly. The hypothetical is fine the way it is presented but your alteration of it is what is incorrect.

Quote:

It does mean that the government grants some persons the license to speak louder. A point you seem to ignore in your argument.

First of all, I want some evidence to support your premise some of those applying for a license to use radio waves will never be granted one.

The dictate is the government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Granting a license for people to use a limited supply of radio waves, and denying it to others, is not abridging speech but regulating a limited resource.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

NotreDame05 wrote:

But is this what the government is basing their decision on?

So the result has no legal bearing if the intent wasn't there? Where do you get that argument from?

Holdings from prior 1st Amendment cases, in which content neutral, viewpoint neutral restrictions on speech, in which the restriction is addressing the effect of the speech and not the speech itself, is permissible, and of course the text of the 1st Amendment itself. Radio waves are in short supply and the government has to regulate them because of their limited nature and doing so is not an infringement upon free speech and the fact some cannot use the radio waves is not a conseqeunce of any decision the government has made but the nature of radio waves being in short supply. The regulation is content neutral, viewpoint neutral, is a regulation of radio waves, it is not a regulation of speech, it is not prohibiting speech as people are permitted to use the radio waves, and consequently there is no violation of the 1st Amendment.

2 Replies

@NotreDame05,

NotreDame05 wrote:

parados wrote:

NotreDame05 wrote:

But is this what the government is basing their decision on?

So the result has no legal bearing if the intent wasn't there? Where do you get that argument from?

Holdings from prior 1st Amendment cases, in which content neutral, viewpoint neutral restrictions on speech, in which the restriction is addressing the effect of the speech and not the speech itself, is permissible, and of course the text of the 1st Amendment itself. Radio waves are in short supply and the government has to regulate them because of their limited nature and doing so is not an infringement upon free speech and the fact some cannot use the radio waves is not a conseqeunce of any decision the government has made but the nature of radio waves being in short supply. The regulation is content neutral, viewpoint neutral, is a regulation of radio waves, it is not a regulation of speech, it is not prohibiting speech as people are permitted to use the radio waves, and consequently there is no violation of the 1st Amendment.

That's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! In the early days of radio,
multiple stations superimposed their competing signals
upon one another on the same frequency.
Sometimes, on the Internet, u can accidentally have multiple audio
from different sites speaking at the same time thru your computer speakers. Its annoying.

( I 'm not sure whether "sites" is the accurate computer term to use. )

David

0 Replies

@NotreDame05,

Quote:

My hypothetical is parallel to what we are discussing, which is not all groups will have access to the park (not all people have access to radio waves), as a result of practicalities unrelated to speech (not enough room or time to accommodate them in the park).

Your hypothetical is not related at all since groups are not sold exclusive rights to the park while other groups are prevented.
When has a group been sold exclusive rights to a park as you claim?

0 Replies

@NotreDame05,

Quote:

Holdings from prior 1st Amendment cases, in which content neutral, viewpoint neutral restrictions on speech, in which the restriction is addressing the effect of the speech and not the speech itself, is permissible, and of course the text of the 1st Amendment itself.

Please cite your cases.

0 Replies

Quote:

FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting
our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court

It is the duty of the judiciary to accurately analyse the law n apply it to the facts
of the case at bar, without interest in the POPULARITY of its decision.

I 'm pretty sure that all of the members of the USSC will remain unaffected
by assemblages in the streets.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I 'm pretty sure that all of the members of the USSC will remain unaffected by assemblages in the streets.

Courts are well aware that their power lie with the respect that the rest of society hold them in

President Jackson told the SC to go pound sand when they ruled that the Indians tribes should not be move from the East.

If the state of Florida was not under the control of the republican party at the time I think that the order to stop the recount of the Presidential election issue by the SC to the state of Florida could had resulted in the same manner of response.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

I 'm pretty sure that all of the members of the USSC will remain unaffected by assemblages in the streets.

BillRM wrote:

Courts are well aware that their power lie with the respect that the rest of society hold them in

The CONSTITUTION constitutes their authority.

BillRM wrote:

If the state of Florida was not under the control of the republican party at the time I think that the order to stop the recount of the Presidential election issue by the SC to the state of Florida could had resulted in the same manner of response.

With WHAT result???????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

With WHAT result???????

It would be a constitution crisis of the first order especially if the recount changes the results of the election.

Highly interesting outcome and not at all good for the standing of the court to say the least no matter how it work out.

The others branches of government with special note to the congress that had the duty to recognize or not the outcome of the election would be in an interesting position.

There is a military truism that you should never give an order that you are aware of will be openly disobey and the justices of the SC are likely to be aware of that truism.

Somehow if there had exist a real question of whether their ruling in this matter would had been obey I question if they would had issue it and placed the standing of the court in such danger.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I 'm pretty sure that all of the members of the USSC will remain unaffected by assemblages in the streets.

Courts are well aware that their power lie with the respect that the rest of society hold them in

President Jackson told the SC to go pound sand when they ruled that the Indians tribes should not be move from the East.

If the state of Florida was not under the control of the republican party at the time I think that the order to stop the recount of the Presidential election issue by the SC to the state of Florida could had resulted in the same manner of response.

Yeah, and there might be men on the moon.

Whether or not the SC Justices would decide a case against their best judgment because they perceive the overwhelming will of the people was coercive (Which by the way I don't believe for one second with a liberal or conservative court), with this issue they are not faced with anything remotely like the overwhelming will of the people.

At what point will all of you wishful thinkers give up on the notion that the Occupy crowds actually represent 99% of Americans. It's a great marketing gimmick, but like all marketing gimmicks, it's bullshit.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill, u seem to have forgotten
what happened in 2000:
there were MANY RE-counts in Florida.
W won all of them 1OO%.

Al Gore lost ALL of them. He did not claim to have won any.

IF he had won any,
then he 'd have admantly DEMANDED that all counting CEASE immediately: NO more counting!!!!

After the official counting was eventually completed,
the leftist newspapers went there and THAY re-counted
and thay agreed that Gore lost and W won. W is for Winning.

It did not matter how many times the Florida votes were re-counted: Gore did not get enuf votes to win,
but he got enuf to LOSE.

THAT 's what happened in 2000.

David

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Sorry but in the case of the Nixon tapes if memory serve me correctly the justices was concern about Nixon not obeying the court and that was why they issue a 9 to zero ruling in the matter in order to reduce that risk.

Justices had a duty not only to the constitution but to maintaining the standing of the court.

Yes, I agree with you that the protects are not of the level to concern the court, I was just addressing the to me incorrect claim that the court never weight other factors in reaching rulings.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The Occupy crowds sure don 't represent ME.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It did not matter how many times the Florida votes were re-counted: Gore did not get enuf votes to win,
but he got enuf to LOSE.

And the justices had no way of knowing that before hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ruling was also interesting in that if memory serve me correctly it stated within it that it does not set a legal precedent for future similar cases.

The court were in fact playing a very fast and dirty game by issuing a temporary restraining order stopping the recount and then giving the reason to not allow the recount to go on as the time it would now take to do the recount after the delays they themselves order in the first place.

Not one of their better moments.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

It did not matter how many times the Florida votes were re-counted: Gore did not get enuf votes to win,
but he got enuf to LOSE.

BillRM wrote:

And the justices had no way of knowing that before hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That statement is FALSE.
Gore had ALREADY lost several re-counts b4 the USSC decision. Enuf is enuf.

If I remember accurately,
there were some more re-counts after that USSC decision,
tho that one was halted.

For SURE, the newspapers' re-count happened after the USSC decision.

David

1 Reply

FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know