Thread: Justice Buchwald subverts legislative intent of First Amendment-twitter case

For the text of the absurd ruling see: KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY vs DONALD J. TRUMP


This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders --- an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system nor dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Now, with regard to the “Bill of Rights”, which includes the First Amendment, we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the people’s affairs, including how they communicate with each other. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments) were never intended to allow Fifth Column judges and Justices to interpret their meaning in a manner allowing them to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law!

This freaken judge needs to be punished for imposing her will as the rule of law and ignoring the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, were adopted.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Originally Posted by johnwk

For the text of the absurd ruling see: KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY vs DONALD J. TRUMP


This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders --- an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted.

I don't see you identify what about the decision you disagree with, or why. You seem to just use it as a launching pad for another lectures on your take on the Constitution.

From what I read in the decision, some people posted negative comments on President Trump's account and he had them blocked, not only from his account, but from the whole forum. That seems like government overreach to me.

Now if they used vulgar language or comments that violated the forum rules, their block would be justified. My quick read of the ruling didn't reveal what specifically was objectionable.

Originally Posted by jtdc

I don't see you identify what about the decision you disagree with, or why. You seem to just use it as a launching pad for another lectures on your take on the Constitution.

From what I read in the decision, some people posted negative comments on President Trump's account and he had them blocked, not only from his account, but from the whole forum. That seems like government overreach to me.

Now if they used vulgar language or comments that violated the forum rules, their block would be justified. My quick read of the ruling didn't reveal what specifically was objectionable.

I wrote:

This Fifth Column judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, rests here opinion on the “public forum” doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court, which in itself is an invention of the Court unknown to our founders — an invention not in harmony with the intentions for which the First Amendment, along with nine others, was adopted. In fact, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, were intentionally adopted to preclude and forbid federal force to be used to meddle in America’s free market system and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.




Just for your information, at least twenty of our Fifth Column news papers around the country have repeatedly refused to publish my letters to the editor on numerous occasions in which I refute their socialist, communist, progressive propaganda. And I accept their right to refuse to publish my letters because that is what freedom is about ___ precluding government force being used to meddle in and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.


Just curious, do you want judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Just for your information, at least twenty of our Fifth Column news papers around the country have repeatedly refused to publish my letters to the editor on numerous occasions in which I refute their socialist, communist, progressive propaganda.

Ah ha! So this is about your hurt feelings because twenty four out of twenty five publications didn't find your writings to be worth publishing! If they are as far off the point as this one, I can understand why.

You have twice now posted a paragraph about a ruling by judge NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, and still haven't said what words by her upset you.

Presumably, the twenty four news papers that rejected your letters are not government owned. So you are dealing with left-wing, or maybe right-wing people who disagree with what you think is important. Likewise, the forum on which President Trump posted his comments is not a wing of the government. You have not identified information that says President Trump or his representatives forced the forum to block people who wrote offensive things about him.

You seem to feel that "Freedom of speech" means others are obligated to hear what you say. But most places, even this forum has rules as to what you can say, like specific words you can't use. And no one is obligated to read them. And the forum has the right to not publish what you write!

That court ruling was a matter between two parties, not the government versus a person.

Originally Posted by johnwk

And I accept their right to refuse to publish my letters because that is what freedom is about ___ precluding government force being used to meddle in and dictate rules by which We the People communicate.

Government makes rules that we all live by. You prefer anarchy?

Originally Posted by johnwk

Just curious, do you want judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate?

No! But is this such a case? I don't see it.

I disagree with the decision because the President should have the same rights as any other twitter account user to block or not to block. So long as he is following the rules of the private business organization, Twitter, then he shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else under the law or by the courts. He's had this personal Twitter account long before he was President and will have it long after. People who read Trump's Twitter are interested in what he has to say and what he's doing, not what the Trump Haters have to say.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Ah ha! So this is about your hurt feelings . . .

Wrong! It's about judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate.

Do we really want judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate? I know they do that in places like Cuba and Venezuela, but do we really want that here?

Judge, NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD apparently wants to exercise that authority and power. Do you?


JWK

.

This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account. Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day. It is not used for official government purposes as is, e.g., @POTUS is used for official government business.

As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?

”The judge's logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn't extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you. The Supreme Court expanded on this in a 1984 case, ruling that a "person's right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others."

In this case, MINNESOTA BD. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT, (1984), JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:

” Appellees have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. They have no such right as members of the public, as government employees, or as instructors in an institution of higher education.

I

The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), this Court rejected a claim to such a right founded on the Due Process [465 U.S. 271, 284] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “


In the instant case the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.


JWK



Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

The Judge is an idiot. We have a lot of them on the bench all across the country.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong! It's about judges or Justices meddling in and dictating rules by which we communicate.

So you think she went out looking for this case so she could dictate law? The plaintiffs filed the suit. I don't agree with her decision, but I don't think it makes her Fifth Column! That's your obsession. Twenty four newspapers rejected your lectures and so you call them all "fifth column"! I think it is you!

I skimmed though that ruling, focusing on her conclusion. The plaintiff's action should have been against Twitter.

Originally Posted by johnwk

.

This nitwit judge, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is alleging the First Amendment forbids President Trump to block critics on his personal Twitter account.

WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN?

Originally Posted by johnwk

Keep in mind the complainants in the case did not assert being blocked on any official government accounts, e.g., @WhiteHouse. The account in question has been in use by Trump several years before running for president, and lately is used by Trump to call out Fake News, Russia-gate, and comment on other political issues of the day.

WRONG! From what I read, Twitter blocked the plaintiff's accounts so they could not post anywhere on Twitter. Now maybe that was at the request of President Trump or his representatives. I don't use Twitter, but I presume that President Trump can block someone from his account, somewhat like Boomslang claims he put me on his Ignore list. But his action in no way limits my ability to post. But Twitter took the action to block them, so Twitter should be the one sued, Then if President Trump used his power to force Twitter to block the accounts of the plaintiffs, Twitter has grounds to sue President Trump!

Originally Posted by johnwk

As pointed out in an article titled: Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?

”The judge's logic turns the traditional way of viewing the First Amendment on its head: Your right to free speech doesn't extend to a right to make someone else, even a politician you have good reason to loathe, listen to you.

If you bothered to read what others write, you would see that I said the same thing already in this thread!

Originally Posted by johnwk

In the instant case [ lawyer speak, but John is not a lawyer ] the complainants are free to setup a Twitter account and complain all they want about President Trump and likewise free to block opposing points of view, and our Constitution prohibits interfering with this fundamental right ___ a right which even extends to President Trump, as much as he is hated by our nitwit “Never Trump Crowd”.

But it was Twitter who blocked their accounts, not the President!

I was in a lawsuit where the property, I and others parked their rigs on, was sold. The new owner sued the former owner, claiming the property was damaged. The former owner filed a third party lawsuit against the truck owners. This should have followed the same track.

Originally Posted by johnwk

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald needs to take her dog-and-pony show elsewhere, perhaps to Cuba or Venezuela where dictators will embrace her with open arms.

So because your feelings were hurt because twenty four newspapers exercised their First Amendment rights to not publish your lectures, you are taking your wrath out on this judge, as if it is the end of our democracy! You are making a lot out of nothing!