President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[falafel]

maybe the question shouldbe why do you want laws that marginalize specific demographics, instead of non targeted laws.

Especially with utahs additional marginilzation. utah already has a huge problem with lgbt youth spefically

Maybe it should be. But if the law has already been passed, the time for that discussion is over.

[Maximus]

Maybe it should be. But if the law has already been passed, the time for that discussion is over.

Maybe /s but sure it won't last long I'm sure

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[falafel]

RAW MILK FOR EVERYONE!!!

[Jeff Lebowski]

You really don't see a difference? Expand this law, make it applicable to ALL government employees at their place of work. No flags except government flags (e.g., flags the government approves of, e.g., speech the government approves of). Aren't elected officials government employees? Let's say Congress passes a law that says government employees cannot engage in speech that the government does not like, e.g., approve of. Not only is that a prior restraint issue, how is that not applicable to a member of Congress that is not a member of the ruling party? The republicans pass a law that says democrats are "communists" and therefore cannot exercise political speech in government functions. Trump literally calls democrats "communists" on a daily basis. How is that different? You have already approved the government's restriction of government employees to speech that the government approves of. If the Rs control Congress and the WH, and the SC agrees with you, how is this result not inevitable?

Elected politicians engaging in politics is an absurd comparison.

Trump flags the post office is so completely different I'm surprised you don't see it. The Post Office is an official government entity. It is an extension of the US Government. There is no right to freedom of speech for the government. The amendment only protects individuals against government action, not government against government action. Therefore, the Post Office is PROPERLY subject to a law that says the Post Office can only fly government-approved flags. If Trump decided he wanted a Trump flag flown at all US Post Offices and both houses of Congress passed an appropriate bill, you bet your ass there'd be a Trump flag at every US Post Office. Hell, we already have a portrait of the current President at nearly every government building. If that's not an endorsement of the current government (and not a different political leader that Post Office location might prefer), I don't know what is.

Why is the post office any different than an elementary school, for example? And this distinction you are making between "government" and "employees" doesn't make sense. Virtually every government office has employees. Employees are the ones that, you know... fly flags. Suppose a mailman tapes a MAGA flag (or a pride flag) on the side of the mail truck. If you tell him/her to take it off, is that a violation of freedom of speech? Of course not.

The first amendment only protects the government's restriction on an individual's (i.e., non-governmental) speech. Just because an individual is employed by the government doesn't mean they surrender their first amendment rights when they walk into work. That would be absurd. The government could force all government employees to publicly exclaim "DONALD TRUMP IS THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BY FAR, HE HAS DONE THINGS WE NEVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE. IN FACT, WE ALL CAME TO HIM, TEARS IN OUR EYES, AND SAID "SIR, THANK YOU FOR UNILATERALLY, WHICH MEANS WITHOUT HELP FROM ANY OHER PERSON OR ENTITY, SAVING OUR COUNTRY AND DEFEATING THE RADICAL LEFT COMMUINISTS, AND IN FACT SAVING THE UNIVERSE FROM TOTAL DESTRUCTION."

Oh come on. Forcing someone to say something is completely different that telling them that certain political expressions are off-limits at work.

[Bo Diddley]

You really don't see a difference? Expand this law, make it applicable to ALL government employees at their place of work. No flags except government flags (e.g., flags the government approves of, e.g., speech the government approves of). Aren't elected officials government employees? Let's say Congress passes a law that says government employees cannot engage in speech that the government does not like, e.g., approve of. Not only is that a prior restraint issue, how is that not applicable to a member of Congress that is not a member of the ruling party? The republicans pass a law that says democrats are "communists" and therefore cannot exercise political speech in government functions. Trump literally calls democrats "communists" on a daily basis. How is that different? You have already approved the government's restriction of government employees to speech that the government approves of. If the Rs control Congress and the WH, and the SC agrees with you, how is this result not inevitable?

Trump flags the post office is so completely different I'm surprised you don't see it. The Post Office is an official government entity. It is an extension of the US Government. There is no right to freedom of speech for the government. The amendment only protects individuals against government action, not government against government action. Therefore, the Post Office is PROPERLY subject to a law that says the Post Office can only fly government-approved flags. If Trump decided he wanted a Trump flag flown at all US Post Offices and both houses of Congress passed an appropriate bill, you bet your ass there'd be a Trump flag at every US Post Office. Hell, we already have a portrait of the current President at nearly every government building. If that's not an endorsement of the current government (and not a different political leader that Post Office location might prefer), I don't know what is.

The first amendment only protects the government's restriction on an individual's (i.e., non-governmental) speech. Just because an individual is employed by the government doesn't mean they surrender their first amendment rights when they walk into work. That would be absurd. The government could force all government employees to publicly exclaim "DONALD TRUMP IS THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BY FAR, HE HAS DONE THINGS WE NEVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE. IN FACT, WE ALL CAME TO HIM, TEARS IN OUR EYES, AND SAID "SIR, THANK YOU FOR UNILATERALLY, WHICH MEANS WITHOUT HELP FROM ANY OHER PERSON OR ENTITY, SAVING OUR COUNTRY AND DEFEATING THE RADICAL LEFT COMMUINISTS, AND IN FACT SAVING THE UNIVERSE FROM TOTAL DESTRUCTION."

You see what I'm getting at.

[Joe Public]

Forcing someone to say something is completely different that telling them that certain political expressions are off-limits at work.

I agree.

I don’t know anything about the Utah law, and I’m not a ConLaw nerd, but of course speech can be restricted without violating the Constitution. Time/place/manner, narrowly tailored, content neutral, etc.

Specific to government employees, there’s a whole line of case law that seeks to balance free speech rights and government employment. Google “Pickering-Garcetti test” or similar. Again, I don’t know anything about the Utah law, but the analysis would involve much more than just “hey, it’s speech, so it must be protected.”

[Maximus]

So will trump appeal the Supreme courts decision to the Supreme Court after the appeals court upheld the Supreme Court?

[USUC]

Words cannot describe how much I detest, how much I loathe the "thought leaders" behind the MAGA part 2 movement. Say what you will about the feckless congressional Republicans, the vast majority are merely spineless and self interested. The Bannons, the Millers, and this guy, however, are genuinely bad actors and will bring suffering to the country.

Embedded Tweet

Gramsci? Take that shit to democratic socialists you buffoon. Retribution on the right will not end well for them and their party. It's cruel and it will be unsustainable. They think they are just getting started but they are simply digging their own graves. One day I hope classical liberalism returns to the GOP.

[frank ryan]

Words cannot describe how much I detest, how much I loathe the "thought leaders" behind the MAGA part 2 movement. Say what you will about the feckless congressional Republicans, the vast majority are merely spineless and self interested. The Bannons, the Millers, and this guy, however, are genuinely bad actors and will bring suffering to the country.

Embedded Tweet

Gramsci? Take that shit to democratic socialists you buffoon. Retribution on the right will not end well for them and their party. It's cruel and it will be unsustainable. They think they are just getting started but they are simply digging their own graves. One day I hope classical liberalism returns to the GOP.

So Ruffo is involved with heritage etc. He has shaped a lot of the messaging and tactics around this culture war bullshit. Central to his strategy has to attack education and reference the woke stuff. He is anti public education.

[frank ryan]

Embedded Tweet

I bet Musk laid a bunch of inspectors off as part of his DOGE charade.

[chrisrenrut]

Reading legal opinions is usually a good sedative. At least for us lay people. But this one is a page turner (only 4 pages)

Embedded Tweet

[Maximus]

Wait is this fake
? Am I idiot

Embedded Tweet

[frank ryan]

Wait is this fake
? Am I idiot

Embedded Tweet

Yeah, but darling of the MAGA Right, Bukele is refusing to let him go.

Also, do you remember the early days of Trump's first admin? He nominated Michael Flynn, but he was let go because he was acting an agent of another country. Flynn, who worked on behalf of Turkey, discussed a plan to kidnap the legal resident, who fled that country because he wronged Erdogan, and illegally extradite him. They were probably considering this strategy for a while.

[Maximus]

I think trump is afraid of the court given he said hes not involved. I bet within 48hrs or so he is slated to come back on some form.