The two systems of justice exposed

An appeals court does not try a case on merit they rule on whether procedure was followed and to address the questions raised by the party presenting the appeal.

The only decision rendered here was to overturn a dismissal and allow the original court action to proceed. Obviously the two people arrested for defacing feel that their Freedom of speech was denied yet in order to prove that they will first have to admit they were knowingly breaking the law. I do not personally see any reason they should not have been allowed to chalk their words but the assertion that their arrest was motivated by the content of the message will need to be proven in court.

Currently this case is the legal equivalent of arguing that your ticket for running a stop sign is invalid because other people that did it last weekend only got a warning. If in fact it was selective prosecution I hope to see Justice done.

You still don't understand what an appeals court does. They do in fact state findings of law - such as these that exposed the two systems of justice and was a major win for free speech.

“The government may not enforce the laws in a manner that picks winners and losers in public debates,” reads the D.C. Circuit opinion penned by Judge Neomi Rao, reversing a lower court’s decision. “It would undermine the First Amendment’s protections for free speech if the government could enact a content-neutral law and then discriminate against disfavored viewpoints under the cover of prosecutorial discretion.”

“The First Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of viewpoint irrespective of the government’s motive,”

The bigger question now is are you against free speech? And do you support two systems of justice?

You still don't understand what an appeals court does. They do in fact state findings of law - such as these that exposed the two systems of justice and was a major win for free speech.

“The government may not enforce the laws in a manner that picks winners and losers in public debates,” reads the D.C. Circuit opinion penned by Judge Neomi Rao, reversing a lower court’s decision. “It would undermine the First Amendment’s protections for free speech if the government could enact a content-neutral law and then discriminate against disfavored viewpoints under the cover of prosecutorial discretion.”

“The First Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of viewpoint irrespective of the government’s motive,”

The bigger question now is are you against free speech? And do you support two systems of justice? Originally Posted by berryberry

The fact that your continues slurs and jabs slide right by me should be evidence of my appreciation for Freedom of speech. All the answers to those questions and the function and purpose of appeals courts are contained within my comments. The practice of asking, then belittling the answer so that you can put your own answer in its place is juvenile and really just continues to indicate that your posts are woefully one-sided and mostly lacking in facts or substance.

Kristan Hawkins, President of SFLA:

“Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood”

I find much truth and value in this statement. It reads more positively without mention of any particular race or skin tone don't you think?

So you couldn't answer the questions and instead chose to respond with personal attacks and insults. Why am I not surprised

Makes one think you are the burner second account of someone I have been ignoring for quite a while now.

Hmmmm. But I give everyone the benefit of the doubt

So you couldn't answer the questions and instead chose to respond with personal attacks and insults. Why am I not surprised

Makes one think you are the burner second account of someone I have been ignoring for quite a while now.

Hmmmm Originally Posted by berryberry

Proving my point again. Thanks!

I have answered quite thoroughly and done so without calling you an idiot or trying to put words in your mouth. Anyone reading my comments can clearly see I come here for debate and exchange of information. The constant 'ill informed' and 'degenerate' and 'tranny lover' slurs you spew are not something I tend to engage in and I will continue to answer in my own way your appreciation doesn't factor into that for me at all.

I believe the topic here is the justice system and duality within which we can discuss in a variety of ways. The more Ad Hominem you sprinkle on top the less value I find in your comments.

Proving my point again. Thanks!

I have answered quite thoroughly and done so without calling you an idiot or trying to put words in your mouth. Anyone reading my comments can clearly see I come here for debate and exchange of information. The constant 'ill informed' and 'degenerate' and 'tranny lover' slurs you spew are not something I tend to engage in and I will continue to answer in my own way your appreciation doesn't factor into that for me at all.

I believe the topic here is the justice system and duality within which we can discuss in a variety of ways. The more Ad Hominem you sprinkle on top the less value I find in your comments. Originally Posted by DNinja69

There you go again - just making stuff up and adding in more personal attacks. Not only did you not answer the two simple questions posed, but no where in this thread is there a reference to 'ill informed' and 'degenerate' and 'tranny lover' except from you. If you want to self identify and that is what you were doing, that is certainly your right.

Again the two simple questions were are you against free speech? And do you support two systems of justice?

This thread seems like a knee-jerk reaction devoid of knowledge about why the charges were brought forward.

Almost as if one just tossed reactionary shit at the board because it hit their news feed and didn't really think about what the words meant.

I said this before, anyone else who is charged with the crimes that Trump is charged with would be in jail without bail. So, berry you are correct, for a change.

I said this before, anyone else who is charged with the crimes that Trump is charged with would be in jail without bail. So, berry you are correct, for a change. Originally Posted by jmichael

You do realize this thread has nothing to do with Trump, don't you? Apparently not