No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[aurik]

I am an idiot who is in law school

I still think it's funny that you cite practically the most irrelevant fragment of the whole analysis that you posted as if it somehow rebutted my original statement. I mean you might as well have cited Red Fish Blue Fish by Dr. Seuss, and even that would have probably have been more relevant than what you did post.

You realize that you're well on your way to be embarrassed yet again by someone who has no formal law training. What year in law school are you?

Let me put it this way. Because there is no absolute right to peaceably assemble & petition, i.e. there are legit reasons the govt. can infringe on that right, until a judge says they are not engaged in disorderly conduct, Walker can infringe on those rights.

Hence why a lawsuit has been filed, and has a fair shot at being successful in producing an injunction.

[Rhinox]

Lol fucking raped

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Me: Walker can do it. Copy/paste.

You: Law barring someone from capital is unconstitutional b/c it infringes on rights.

Me: Not when the govt. uses less drastic means. Bottom of copy/paste.

Not sure where I failed to rebut your statement.

[Plow]

Me: Walker can do it. Copy/paste.

You: Law barring someone from capital is unconstitutional b/c it infringes on rights.

Me: Not when the govt. uses less drastic means. Bottom of copy/paste.

Not sure where I failed to rebut your statement.

I conclude therefore that even if S. Jt. Res. 53 were to have force and effect it would be unnecessary and clearly unconstitutional.

hurr durr?

[Demosthenes11]

this line of thought baffles me.

"walker can do this cuz it's not illegal until the courts say what he is doing is illegal"

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

this line of thought baffles me.

"walker can do this cuz it's not illegal until the courts say what he is doing is illegal"

That's not a line of thought, just a sad fact.

[Demosthenes11]

That's not a line of thought, just a sad fact.

meant a line of thought by the govt to justify illegal things.

[aurik]

It's painful how dumb Swampy is.

Just because there's a law against disorderly conduct & theft that can be used to effectively bar disorderly people from the capitol doesn't mean he can bar people from the legislature because he thinks they might be disorderly. He can only bar them from the capitol once they are actually being disorderly and only then because he is using due process of law is he allowed to impinge upon their right to peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government.

In fact, the copypasta concludes that any stated intent to bar people from the capitol to prevent malfeasance is unconstitutional and would be proper basis for injunctive relief in the courts to prevent such action in the absence of actual malfeasance because it essentially forms improper prior restraint that unnecessarily stifles their first amendment rights. So, once again, you are citing law that supports the opposite of your point.

You will make an excellent lawyer.

[Demosthenes11]

It's painful how dumb Swampy is.

Just because there's a law against disorderly conduct & theft that can be used to effectively bar disorderly people from the capitol doesn't mean he can bar people from the legislature because he thinks they might be disorderly. He can only bar them from the capitol once they are actually being disorderly and only then because he is using due process of law is he allowed to impinge upon their right to peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government.

In fact, the copypasta concludes that any stated intent to bar people from the capitol to prevent malfeasance is unconstitutional and would be proper basis for injunctive relief in the courts to prevent such action in the absence of actual malfeasance because it essentially forms improper prior restraint that unnecessarily stifles their first amendment rights. So, once again, you are citing law that supports the opposite of your point.

You will make an excellent lawyer.

ok that makes more sense. I was going to actually read the thing but once you started posting it seemed pretty unnecessary

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's painful how blinded by ideology you are. I really think you just argue with me b/c I'm not a liberal.

The blindingly obvious response to what you just posted is that they are already acting disorderly and thus it's not a prior restraint at all. FFS that's just simple logic. I'm dumbfounded you would even raise such an argument considering they've been there for days. If they've been there for days already, clearly there's no prior restraint. I mean wtf aurik.

I posted the copy/paste b/c the AG's opinion that Olo cited stated why Walker can do what he's doing. It was hardly the main thrust of the opinion, but it was there. There are statutes that give Walker the ability to infringe on those rights. Nothing you have posted thus far refutes that point.

[Cantih]

I hope to god Swamp isn't aiming for trial law, or any kind of legal advice business. I'd fear for the clientele.
Seriously, if you actually pass, only work for major corporation's in-house positions, please.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You know what aurik, you can't tell the difference b/w what the legislature did in that opinion and what is going on now.

Here, Walker did not say, "union members are not allowed to protest here," what the legislature did there. He's saying, you are not allowed to protest to here now for X reason. Reading comprehension helps.

[Demosthenes11]

did you just say they are disorderly simply because they have been there for days?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

did you just say they are disorderly simply because they have been there for days?

No. I said there can't possibly be a prior restraint b/c they've been there for days.

Unless of course there's evidence they were prevented from protesting prior to being there.

[aurik]

If they're being disorderly, where's the arrests? Where's the prosecution? It's all fine and dandy that Walker and/or you claim they are being disorderly. Without due process of law, they retain their rights.

[aurik]

No. I said there can't possibly be a prior restraint b/c they've been there for days.

Unless of course there's evidence they were prevented from protesting prior to being there.

You have no idea what the concept of prior restraint is.

[aurik]

You know what aurik, you can't tell the difference b/w what the legislature did in that opinion and what is going on now.

Here, Walker did not say, "union members are not allowed to protest here," what the legislature did there. He's saying, you are not allowed to protest to here now for X reason. Reading comprehension helps.

And this is impinging their right to petition the government without due process. For a conservative who lives and dies by the constitution, you sure don't like the first amendment.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's ok aurik. Like you said, you have no formal legal training.

Your first two questions are irrelevant. Neither need to happen in order to justify what Walker is doing. This is probably the analysis that matters:

1. no content discrimination
2. requires a showing of a substantial govt. interest
3. interest must be unrelated to suppression of expression
4. effect on speech must be no greater than necessary to achieve that interest
5. alternative channels of communication must be available

And I think you mean WITH, not without.

Also, again, reading comprehension. I've only stated there are legit reasons Walker can do what he's doing, not that they in fact, exist.

[aurik]

It's ok aurik. Like you said, you have no formal legal training.

Your first two questions are irrelevant. Neither need to happen in order to justify what Walker is doing. This is probably the analysis that matters:

1. no content discrimination
2. requires a showing of a substantial govt. interest
3. interest must be unrelated to suppression of expression
4. effect on speech must be no greater than necessary to achieve that interest
5. alternative channels of communication must be available

And I think you mean WITH, not without.

Also, again, reading comprehension. I've only stated there are legit reasons Walker can do what he's doing, not that they in fact, exist.

Uh, actually, they are incredibly relevant. You said they're being disorderly, but you don't have the authority to conclude that. The only people that have the authority to conclude that is a jury of peers. Without a trial there is no due process, ergo they retain their right to petition. Without an arrest and a charge there is no trial.

Your whole entire citation that is basically a finding that a law that specifically bars a single person from the capitol because it is feared that he might commit malfeasance while in the capitol is unconsitutional in no way shape or form under any interpretation in current, past, or future law in this universe or any other universe either actually existing or purely fictional supports the idea that Walker can unilaterally bar people from entering the capitol, either at random or on the basis that he disagrees with their perspective on the issue of the day.

Also, this is impinging their right to petition the government without due process is what I wrote and what I meant. L2Read I guess.

[notorious bum]

Aggressive. Tenacious. Incompetent. Donkey & ASSociates. For the people.