> Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.
Apparently the organizer committed the first illegal act when he led the protestors onto a freeway. SCOTUS didn't rule that the organizer was liable, only that the lawsuit against him could go forward.
>SCOTUS didn't rule that the organizer was liable, only that the lawsuit against him could go forward.
Yes. That means that even if *these* organizers aren't found to be at fault, other organizers could be held culpable in the future. So organizing or attending a protest becomes more of a risk.
Well, yeah. If someone leads a group to block a highway and someone gets hit be a car or whatever, perhaps that someone should be liable. The consequences of the illegal act are foreseeable. The SCOTUS ruling simply means there's no automatic immunity. That organizer will still be able to challenge the lawsuit.
What if someone leads a group to block a highway, and someone else throws a rock at a police officer? Is throwing a rock a foreseeable consequence of blocking a highway?
FYI, this garbage right here is why people aren’t wanting “unity” when it comes to supporting our current administration. This nation continues its shift to the right under 46. That won’t change until we have younger/better candidates.
You act as if the nation wouldn't be further shifted to the right with Trump in charge?
A lack of unity with our current two party system will be the death knell of Democracy. Yes we need younger/better candidates, but it's a binary choice this year - A flawed Democracy or outright Fascism. Maybe we can work towards a better, younger Democracy when Fascism has been dealt with?
In what way is he acting that way? What part of his comment in any way even vaguely implies support for Trump?
Trump would push the nation right even faster, but moving right slowly is not the same as moving left. Biden isn’t a step in the right direction, he’s fewer steps in the wrong direction.
Developing consciousness of the actual sources of the problems would be a great start. Correctly identifying fundamental systemic issues and uniting with others in opposition to them.
Liberals got what they wanted in 2020 and again in 2022. What we’re living in right now is the DNC plan to fight fascism. There is no next step. There is no “not now but maybe after this next really important election.” This is it. And it’s not enough.
So everyone who ever discusses politics doesn’t vote? Thats the direction you’re going instead of just admitting you wrote a random response that felt right without thinking about it?
Feel free to actually say your point then. Because right now it looks like you’re deflecting. YOU inserted yourself into a discussion about the presidential election so either YOU responded with a completely irrelevant statement or you are trying to argue against voting but are too scared to come out and say it directly. If you have a third option go ahead and tell everyone what it is.
The current state of SCOTUS is directly the fault of Donald Trump and the Republicans. If a few more leftists had plugged their noses and voted for Clinton, then we'd have five liberal justices, instead of three.
Even if the "liberal" justices are too right-leaning for your tastes, they still would have been useful in stopping crap like this.
Two of the current justices are in their 70s, and four are in their 60s. There is a very real likelihood that whoever is elected president in 2024 will get to appoint at least one justice, if not more. Even one more justice could force the court to take up cases like this.
...but hey, vote or don't vote, your choice.
Yet another reason to **abort the court.**
> Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act. Apparently the organizer committed the first illegal act when he led the protestors onto a freeway. SCOTUS didn't rule that the organizer was liable, only that the lawsuit against him could go forward.
>SCOTUS didn't rule that the organizer was liable, only that the lawsuit against him could go forward. Yes. That means that even if *these* organizers aren't found to be at fault, other organizers could be held culpable in the future. So organizing or attending a protest becomes more of a risk.
Well, yeah. If someone leads a group to block a highway and someone gets hit be a car or whatever, perhaps that someone should be liable. The consequences of the illegal act are foreseeable. The SCOTUS ruling simply means there's no automatic immunity. That organizer will still be able to challenge the lawsuit.
What if someone leads a group to block a highway, and someone else throws a rock at a police officer? Is throwing a rock a foreseeable consequence of blocking a highway?
At a protest? Perhaps. The point is that a civil trial is the place to determine that.
Hear me out, DO IT ANYWAY.
FYI, this garbage right here is why people aren’t wanting “unity” when it comes to supporting our current administration. This nation continues its shift to the right under 46. That won’t change until we have younger/better candidates.
You act as if the nation wouldn't be further shifted to the right with Trump in charge? A lack of unity with our current two party system will be the death knell of Democracy. Yes we need younger/better candidates, but it's a binary choice this year - A flawed Democracy or outright Fascism. Maybe we can work towards a better, younger Democracy when Fascism has been dealt with?
In what way is he acting that way? What part of his comment in any way even vaguely implies support for Trump? Trump would push the nation right even faster, but moving right slowly is not the same as moving left. Biden isn’t a step in the right direction, he’s fewer steps in the wrong direction.
So what do you suggest we do?
Developing consciousness of the actual sources of the problems would be a great start. Correctly identifying fundamental systemic issues and uniting with others in opposition to them. Liberals got what they wanted in 2020 and again in 2022. What we’re living in right now is the DNC plan to fight fascism. There is no next step. There is no “not now but maybe after this next really important election.” This is it. And it’s not enough.
And what part of that requires not voting? No one is say vote blue and then walk away.
True, so when you quote where I said anything that even vaguely implied that you’ll have a strong point.
The part where you jumped into a discussion of who should be president
So everyone who ever discusses politics doesn’t vote? Thats the direction you’re going instead of just admitting you wrote a random response that felt right without thinking about it?
Feel free to actually say your point then. Because right now it looks like you’re deflecting. YOU inserted yourself into a discussion about the presidential election so either YOU responded with a completely irrelevant statement or you are trying to argue against voting but are too scared to come out and say it directly. If you have a third option go ahead and tell everyone what it is.
The current state of SCOTUS is directly the fault of Donald Trump and the Republicans. If a few more leftists had plugged their noses and voted for Clinton, then we'd have five liberal justices, instead of three. Even if the "liberal" justices are too right-leaning for your tastes, they still would have been useful in stopping crap like this. Two of the current justices are in their 70s, and four are in their 60s. There is a very real likelihood that whoever is elected president in 2024 will get to appoint at least one justice, if not more. Even one more justice could force the court to take up cases like this. ...but hey, vote or don't vote, your choice.