Last week a federal judge made the absurd ruling that President Donald Trump was constitutionally barred from blocking people on Twitter. So, yet another liberal judge is re-writing the constitution to suit the liberal agenda.
The Bill Clinton-appointed District Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled that the “interactive space” where Americans interact with Trump (that would be his Twitter account) is a “designated public forum” and therefore is covered by the First Amendment. A left-wing group called the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven Americans who had been blocked by the president.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald in New York rejected the administration’s arguments that the president, in blocking the users, was simply exercising the right a private individual might have, to choose “not to engage” with the individuals who brought the lawsuit.
The audience for a reply on Trump’s account isn’t just Trump, she ruled, rejecting the administration’s argument. It’s the entire audience of millions who were deprived of the ability to read the replies the plaintiffs in the case posted. “In sum,” she wrote, “we conclude that the blocking of the individual plaintiffs as a result of the political views they have expressed is impermissible under the First Amendment.” ..........To Read More.....
My Take - Transparency in government has become a major public issue, and should be. First we have 'secret science' from EPA being used to promote regulations that have no basis in science. How convenient is that? Then we have all this stuff about the FBI, CIA, NSA and the entire Obama administration coming out that has to make everyone concerned about what's actually going on in the federal government. However - it's not a conspiracy - try and keep that straight! Unless of course it's vast right wing conspiracy, then it's ok to call anything being done by conservatives a conspiracy.
But this isn't a transparency issue, nor is it a conspiracy, not even a right wing one. This is nothing more than an incompetent federal jurist (not an uncommon problem by the way) embracing leftism and twisting the clear wording and understanding of the Constitution to attack a President they hate (not an uncommone problem by the way).
Not dislike - hate - and in the minds of the left any action that can undermine him is acceptable no matter how outrageous, illegal, or downright stupid it may be.
Another excellent example of why a 28th Amendment needs to be passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment