619
'Crazed in his hatred for me': Trump blows top over judge ordering Ivanka to testify
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
619 points (96.4% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3626 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah, for some reason this defendant gets to trash the judges all he wants, no consequences.
He's never ever going to get contempt of court.
"some reason" being the "first amendment".
You try it and see how far the 1st amendment gets you. Most defendants don't get to trash the judge with no consequences.
[citation needed]
People keep saying this but from what I can tell "gag orders" aren't common.
You know that a gag order is a specific restriction on free speech that courts can issue, right? That's literally what they are for.
The gag order doesn't apply to Judge Engoron. Both he and Judge Chutkan in the DC case specifically exempted themselves from being covered by their respective gag orders. The logic is that the 1st Amendment protects criticism of federal judges. He can't, however, threaten federal judges, so it'll be interesting to see how far he pushes it. Unfortunately, in the past he's shown a surprising amount of restraint in skating just up to the line, but not actually crossing it.
They don't allow a judge to declare whatever they want. Trump is appealing one of his gag orders and will likely be successful in part.
Judges can't simply do whatever they want.
Gag orders on indicted felons who can't shut up are extremely common. He isn't likely to prevail on that.
They can't stop him from saying just anything, gag orders need to be narrow and serve a justice purpose.
That's why part of the gag is likely to be changed as its overly broad.
They haven't prevented him from saying anything. They prevent him from attacking witnesses and court employees which is well within scope of a gag order.
Which isn't what this thread was talking about at the start...
"Congress shall make no law...".
This is the judiciary: different branch of government.
The executive could also issue an order that restricts free speech and not violate the first amendment.
The court cannot violate the freedom of speech willy nilly. It must serve the purpose of justice being served.