- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,316
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A federal judge on Tuesday told police temporarily to stop issuing tickets to Occupy Cincinnati demonstrators camping out in a city park, while the protesters’ lawyers and city leaders try to hammer out an agreement on issues in the protesters’ federal lawsuit against the city.
On Tuesday night, the group’s General Assembly met for two hours in the Main Library, overlooking their demonstration site, Piatt Park, as a thunderstorm rolled through. The group turned down a “settlement offer” from the city and agreed to submit a counter-proposal, said Geoffrey M. Miller, an attorney representing the protesters.
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?
So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.
Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.
Telling the police to not issue tickets until this is resolved is not unconstitutional. Keeping this all secret bothers me.
Huh? Why should the law "settle?"
Huh? Why should the law "settle?"
The protesters don't own the land. It's a public park governed by police powers they consent to.
The local law enforcement are ******s.
No, it's subject to the police powers which citizens consent to. Laws. Ordinances. Not situational ethics.
Law is subject to review by the judiciary, which is what happened here. You have a very authoritarian take on this, I'm glad it's not the actual system we have.
Then the judges are ******s and acting against the laws they swore to uphold.
Law is subject to review by the judiciary, which is what happened here. You have a very authoritarian take on this, I'm glad it's not the actual system we have.
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.
They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.
Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.
Please don't confuse "authoritarian" with "uninformed."
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.
They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.
Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.
They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.
Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?
So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.
Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?