Twitter is shit too.

 

Sorry you are correct Herr Durr Freedom of speech is the first amendment. I was a little tired yesterday when I wrote this. Again sorry.

 

For a minute I thought that one of those activist judges had decided to change the Constitution while I slept.

 

I do not see a reversal here. The law is well-settled on the underlying issues that gave rise to the two primary questions that were before the court (1)whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and (2) whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States.
I am surprised that Trump took a chance on this one after last year's case of Davison v. Loudoun out of Virginia. What makes it even more absurd for Trump to litigate this case is the fact that the question as to whether the forum doctrine was applicable here became an easy one to answer after he stipulated that (1) he and Scavino exercise control over various aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, (2) the @realDonaldTrump account is presented as being registered to Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, Washington, D.C., (3) that his tweets from @realDonaldTrump are official records that must be preserved under the Presidential Records Act, and (4) that the @realDonaldTrump account has been used in the course of the appointment of officers (including cabinet secretaries), the removal of officers, and the conduct of foreign policy -- all of which are squarely executive functions.

As to Feinstein and Schumer, all I have to say is that I much rather watch The Jerry Springer Show than those 2 clowns.

 

I don't know what you're referring to as 'took a chance on this one.' Here's how I see it, US public officials (including Patrick Little) can now say whatever they want and the public can respond however they want. The 'Russian Bots' are the winners here. Twitter may walk right into a class action lawsuit.

 

I was referring to taking a chance at litigating this case. The odds of winning it were against him.

 

Comment removed as no longer necessary.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2018

@TonyG I think you are correct. It seems that whoever is advising him is not doing a good job. After 2 days he has not unblocked any of the plaintiffs. What is it that he is waiting for? He should unblock them and in a couple of days this would be just another piece of news.

 

You were joking but it wouldn't surprised me if it actually occurred.

 

We have to wait and see what his next move is. He could be correctly advised and decide to do whatever he wants. He is Donald Trump. Prior to the filing of the complaint, the Knight Institute sent him a letter requesting that he unblock the users he had blocked. He refused to do so.I have attached said letter for those that wish to read it.

 

Can he be held in contempt?

 

No

The ruling doesn't order DJT or Twitter to unblock anyone it just ruled that the blocking of any user who wishes to engage with what is an currently an official government channel of communication is a violation of the blocked users constitutional rights.

Punitive action would have to come from congress at this point. A judge could order Twitter to unblock users (setting a precedent on political speech over social media....

This is getting complicated, there is already plenty of material written about this if you stick to intellectual reports rather than editorials on the matter itself you will get better and more complete information than what would be provided here.

 

Trump is in good shape there. My understanding is no one can be held in contempt for failing to abide by a declaration. Should further relief be necessary, the plaintiffs would have to go back before the Court and ask for that relief.

 

@mozee The judge can order that relief. It does not have to, and would not, come from Congress. During oral arguments the judge explicitly stated that she understood that she had the power to enjoin the President but decided to be less intrusive. In fact, the declaratory relief entered here has the same effect as injuctive relief. During oral argument the Department of Justice made it clear: "If the court were to issue declaratory relief directed at the President the effect of that relief would be for the Court to be saying that the President has to take a specific action with respect to his Twitter account, and that raises all of the same structural separation powers issues that I gather your Honor is well versed in from the briefs."
As it is right now, there is nothing that Congress can do because Trump has not been positively directed by writ to perform, or to abstain or desist from, some act.

 

What I'm doing here is the same thing we do with musical gear. We have the manual but come here and ask. All those intellectual reports are written for lawyers not for the layman. The more I read them, the less I understand. A couple of members here seem to know what they are talking about and promptly answer all my questions. Specially, @TonyG and @Herr Durr. I feel very comfortable with their answers.

 

@TonyG

The judge can order whatever she wants and I think she is being a bit misleading here because the enforcement action of that order isn't permissible. The judge can make whatever ruling she wants to and she acknowledges that, there is however no method of enforcement of a judicial order against an uncooperative sitting president. She can grant damages to the people wronged if they ask for money but there is no clear legal way for her to make DJT unblock those people or punish him until he unblocks them. She can force Twitter and punish Twitter...

There isn't much precedent for indictment or enforcement of action on a sitting president, the only constitutional punitive action any branch can take against a sitting president is impeachment by the legislature. If we are talking about punitive damages (money awarded) then yes the judge can rule as she would in essence ruling against the United States when she is ruling against a sitting president, the money will not be coming from DJT but from the USA if it comes at all.

Indictment is a bit fuzzier than enforcement and might be possible but the last two times an indictment was sought on a sitting president (Nixxon `73, Clinton `00) the AGO determined that indictment and prosecution were unconstitutional and impermissible as it would undermine and burden executive power to act and to perform its constitutional assigned functions. The government has since 1973 been going by OLC's memo that prosecution and enforcement are even more impermissible since they would in essence countermand the will of the people of the United States and invalidate an election, the only method would be to remove the president first (impeachment) which is a constitutionally allowed congressional action that removes a sitting president and if removed the ex-president can now be tried as a normal citizen, and there is no longer any Constitutional crisis between judicial and executive power.

This is more of an issue of the constitution's silence and tradition rather than an implicit block on action against a sitting president... however the thinking on coercing a sitting president to preform an action that they refuse to perform that they are not implicitly denied from acting on is that it is easier to just remove them from power by impeachment and take away that power. Impeachment under the Constitution “should only be applied to high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office and which alone affect the officer in discharge of his duties.” So even there is a grey area even there, but legislators are not as law bound as judges and as representatives of the people can and should do as they may.

Alas, I digress

 

@mozee Thanks for replying. Firstly, I would like to note that in this case the Plaintiffs were not seeking, and did not request, monetary damages. Secondly, your contention that enforcement of her order in this case is impermissible is tantamount to saying that the President is above the law. I recognize that you are not alone in that regards. That is exactly what the DOJ has been arguing in every case in which President Trump is sued in his official capacity. In so doing, the DOJ cites the 1887 Supreme Court case of Mississippi v. Johnson in its most extreme and absolute light. Mississippi does not control this case.
Mississippi addressed exercise of a president's "purely executive and political" powers and, therefore, should not be used to bar any injunction against a president, no matter the circumstances. Enforcing the ruling in this case would not require the court to to superintend Trump's discharge of his executive or political functions. Accordingly, a "separation of powers' argument here is nothing but a red herring. Mississippi makes perfect contextual sense as part of a broader pattern of rulings tailored to avoid a potentially cataclysmic constitutional showdown over Reconstruction. But that doesn’t mean its constraint on the power of federal courts vis-a-vis the President should be read for all it’s worth. Indeed, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal courts’ power to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the President, even though President Nixon had expressly argued that Mississippi barred the federal courts from issuing such coercive relief against the sitting Chief Executive.
Moreover, there are numerous cases enjoining past presidents and in contexts involving far weightier executive interest than those at issue in this case. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (enjoining President Truman’s order directing the seizure of privately owned steel mills); United States v. Burr,(affirming issuance of subpoena requiring President Jefferson to turn over confidential correspondence); Nixon v. Sirica,(discussing presidential immunity implications of Youngstown decision).
In sum, the court’s jurisdiction in this case is not extinguished by the mere invocation of presidential power. Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower courts have ever held that the President enjoys blanket immunity from injunctive relief to remedy such ongoing constitutional violations.

 

Great analogy! You are correct when you said that the more you read those articles the less you understand the issues they discuss. The majority of those articles are not intended for the layman.They are geared toward the legal community. Thanks for your vote of confidence. Just keep in mind that:
The information in this post is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should construed as legal advice from Audiosex or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this thread without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.

 

He brought this on himself really. If he is going to use his own personal Twitter account as a sounding board from his Presidential role, i.e. discuss things related to his role as President, then it should be that he cannot block people and he should neither be allowed to delete stuff as they would probably constitute official records of what the President of the United States said. He has his @POTUS twitter handle to use and could have used solely that for "work" things and his own for solely "personal" things, but as he has chosen to blur the lines and use his own personal handle for discussing presidential-related babble, then like I said, it's his own fault for getting into this kind of situation. Next I am awaiting a similar case over the deleting of stuff from his Twitter account, and whether that breaks the law in terms of deleting official Presidential statements as if they never existed.