Wait ... Did they just say UNANIMOUS???

Yup, that's right. The Supremes just made a unanimous decision. All nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States just agreed on something.

When is the last time THAT happened?? Actually, so far in 2024 it has happened quite a bit. Over 80% of cases so far this term have been unanimous. You didn't know that, did you? Not that consensus by itself is evaluative of function, but I think the Court is working fairly well here.

So what was this most recent case about, you ask? It was about my favorite subject of all: The Freedom of Speech (expression) and more specifically the prohibition against any government infringement on the People's pre-existing Right to Free Expression.

Specifically, in this case, the NRA was "harmed" as a result of actions taken by the State of New York. Those actions were taken openly by the State because it did not like the politic expression coming from the NRA, specifically it's stance in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And guess who took up the NRA's case and argued it before the Supremes?? I hope you're sitting down for this: The ACLU. Yup, the legal bastion of the left took up the right to free speech of the flag bearer of the right. No wonder the Supremes were unanimous here.

I've written often on here about the fundamental right of all people to free expression unimpeded by government interference.

And I've asked you several times if you support the right to free speech. My litmus test to supporting this fundamental right is this: Do you support and defend the right of people with whom you vehemently disagree to speak their ideas no matter how strongly you disagree?? Or do you seek to silence the opposition?

Well, the ACLU defended the NRA's right to free speech.
Justice Sotomayor voted for and defended the decision.

What about you? Do you support and defend the fundamental right of everyone across the political spectrum to free expression??

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

TexChik · F

The same state that so willfully violated the NRA's 1st Amendment rights has just stepped up and violated the 6th Amendment rights of an ex-president.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@TexChik the sixth amendment guarantees:
- the rights to a fast and public trial by an impartial jury,
- to be aware of the criminal charges,
- to confront witnesses during the trial,
- to have witnesses appear in the trial, and
- the right to legal representation.

Which of these rights were denied to an ex-president?

TexChik · F

@sarabee1995 No criminal charges were specified by the DA in the trial. Trump's attorneys were attacked by the judge at each objection, and they were all denied, whereas the prosecutor's objections were all sustained. The judge removed the jury and would not allow Cohen's lawyer to testify about Cohen's lies nor would he allow a retired federal elections attorney to testify what was and was not legal practice during an election. The judge was not impartial. He was appointed to this case and was an anti-Trump Democrat who donated heavily to Biden. His daughter was paid $2 Million by Adam Schiff to write about the trial, while forcing a gag order on Trump so he could not address what she was saying. The Jury indicated they were Democrats, not Trump supporters ...so impartiality is Clearly an issue. And by law, a guilty verdict must be unanimous...not by a majority. The judge did not tell the jury that, nor did he give them written instructions when he charged them. Many other procedural matters could also be used to overturn the verdict. A lib judge, lib jury, Lib prosecutor who's election platform was about getting Trump and concocting a charge list so that it would qualify as felonies...Who did not believe they would find him guilty....and still. No one knows what the crime was, and there was no victim. It's about election interference via a politicized legal system doing anything possible to prevent Trump from winning.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@TexChik Well, I got curious about this case a few weeks ago (ignored it for months prior). It took me about a minute and a half to find out what the charges were and to understand them. So the charges were not secret and we're not withheld from anyone who wanted to know them.

Yes, unanimous decisions are required of juries in criminal cases. I have no idea if that is a required part of the jury charge, but it is a moot point, the decision was unanimous.

Next, there is almost no such thing as a victimless crime. In this case, the victim is all of us.
- Asking someone not to discuss a matter is perfectly legal.
- Paying that person not to speak of the thing is also perfectly legal.
- Characterizing that payment as anything other than what it was is illegal not just because that mischaracterization resulted in unearned tax deductions. It also was done with intent to mislead the public during an election. THAT is not victimless.

TexChik · F

@sarabee1995 No specific crimes were listed, and the case is about a campaign finance clerical error made 7 years ago. Clearly, your law school was much more progressive than mine but I do know the law. I saw no charges; neither has anyone at my office nor many State Attorney Generals. Judicial bias was prevalent. The jury was not charged properly by the judge. The jury was not made aware of specific crimes, nor was Trump charged with specific crimes. The prosecutor lumped together a batch of minor misdemeanors that had passed their statutes to create 34 felony charges. Never in our history has this happened. The constitutional violations are astounding. Who is the victim? Why was damning testimony for the defense blocked by the political activist judge? Why didn't the judge recuse himself? Why the unconstitutional gag order? Why now, after 7 years, did they concoct these fake charges? Why is a state court prosecuting a federal campaign finance case?

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@TexChik Many of the counts were falsifying business records. That's a charge I understand. As you know I'm now involved in my family's business. And as of this year, I sign many of the tax returns.

Well , when my grandfather was in charge there was not a tax he didn't try to avoid. For the area of the business where I'm now the responsible partner, we will be 100% compliant with all laws and regulations and will have documentation for every deduction. This isn't because I like paying taxes. This is because I do not lie, cheat, nor steal and because even a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records would bounce me out of the military for conduct unbecoming.

I demand the same code of ethical conduct from my political leaders.

It is time for both of these geezers to retire. Neither of them is getting my vote.

TexChik · F

@sarabee1995 You dont demand the same from the socialists in office now. Only from Trump and other than a kangaroo court conviction that won't stand...you have no facts in the case to prove Trump did anything other than run for office. No Biden bribe schemes or influence peddling concerns for you? No worry about people being held in jail for 4 years without a trial as political prisoners because they were near the capital on Jan 6 ? The real trial begins on election day.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@TexChik I do demand the same from those in office now. This is why I won't be voting for either of them.