• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Cincinnati Not To Ticket OWS'ers

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
A federal judge on Tuesday told police temporarily to stop issuing tickets to Occupy Cincinnati demonstrators camping out in a city park, while the protesters’ lawyers and city leaders try to hammer out an agreement on issues in the protesters’ federal lawsuit against the city.
On Tuesday night, the group’s General Assembly met for two hours in the Main Library, overlooking their demonstration site, Piatt Park, as a thunderstorm rolled through. The group turned down a “settlement offer” from the city and agreed to submit a counter-proposal, said Geoffrey M. Miller, an attorney representing the protesters.

Federal judge tells police not to ticket Occupy protesters | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com
 
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?

So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.

Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.
 
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?


Good point. I can understand the judge making this ruling because similiar rulings are handed down all the time but the negotiations should be public as they are dealing with a public space.

So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.

Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.

Telling the police to not issue tickets until this is resolved is not unconstitutional. Keeping this all secret bothers me.
 
Telling the police to not issue tickets until this is resolved is not unconstitutional. Keeping this all secret bothers me.

I can agree with this. I don't find anything they did to be particularly "unconstitutional", but it should be public.
 
Just taking a guess here, but I think the secrecy involves
1) the two groups trying to seek a fair settlement for both parties
2) both groups trying to save face with regards to their responsibilities to those they represent
3) trying to prohibit instigation from outside sources, such as bloggers, who may make the tension worse even though they have nothing to do with that situation

There's a lot going on right now, and I think the last thing either side needs or wants is speculation about what the settlement should be. Better for them to come up with a settlement that is mutually beneficial and once they come to it both parties can address it and go by it.
 
Huh? Why should the law "settle?"
 
Huh? Why should the law "settle?"

Because there's a number of questions with regards to the legality of the laws.
 
Huh? Why should the law "settle?"

The protesters own the land also. There is nothing to gain by either side digging in their heels.
 
The protesters don't own the land. It's a public park governed by police powers they consent to.
 
This is a preliminary injunction. It's pretty standard. If there's an allegation of damage, and provable risk of further damage, the activity in question is often ordered to stop until the issue is resolved.

As for the "secrecy" thing. The city and the protesters chose not to release the information. They have that right. The content of negotiations like this are very seldom released to the public. In terms of legal procedure, there is nothing unusual going on here.
 
The local law enforcement are ******s.
 
The protesters don't own the land. It's a public park governed by police powers they consent to.

That's what public means. Everyone owns it. The citizens of the city all jointly own the park. Police do nothing more than enforce the decisions made by those citizens and their elected representatives. Police don't govern anything.
 
No, it's subject to the police powers which citizens consent to. Laws. Ordinances. Not situational ethics.
 
The local law enforcement are ******s.

How are the "******s"? They were ordered not to ticket though the proper channels of checks and balances.
 
No, it's subject to the police powers which citizens consent to. Laws. Ordinances. Not situational ethics.

Law is subject to review by the judiciary, which is what happened here. You have a very authoritarian take on this, I'm glad it's not the actual system we have.
 
Then the judges are ******s and acting against the laws they swore to uphold.
 
Law is subject to review by the judiciary, which is what happened here. You have a very authoritarian take on this, I'm glad it's not the actual system we have.

If judges set them aside situationally, then they are not ordinances.
 
Then the judges are ******s and acting against the laws they swore to uphold.

Judges do not uphold the law, they judge the law. They can review the law and put it on hold till further review is completed if they feel it is proper. This is nothing more than part of the checks and balances we have on the system in order to ensure proper government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. The government was created to uphold, protect, and proliferate our freedom; not arbitrarily pass any ol' law they want and then punish us for not following it. All law is subject to review through the judiciary if it is brought to the court.
 
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.

They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.

Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.
 
Law is subject to review by the judiciary, which is what happened here. You have a very authoritarian take on this, I'm glad it's not the actual system we have.

Please don't confuse "authoritarian" with "uninformed."
 
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.

They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.

Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.

So you support these judges efforts to protect the protesters right to free assembly then?
 
Please don't confuse "authoritarian" with "uninformed."

I don't believe his position to line up with the latter, but rather the former. He is defining everything through the use of State force, not focused on the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.

They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.

Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.

And yet this is a situation where city ordinances are butting up against First Amendment rights. The judge is following his vow to uphold the constitution.

This is an entirely routine action by judiciary, and is COMPLETELY LEGAL. This is business as usual and how our legal system actually works. I'm sorry if you just really hate these people, Reg, but that's no excuse to trample on due process.
 
Judges swear to uphold the law and defend the Constitution.

They can't arbitrarily make up **** as they go along.

Otherwise, there are no laws, only men.

Are they though? I think the Constitution says a little something something about assembly. Perchance a bit of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They are looking at this as an issue of law against one's right to peaceful assembly. It's proper review and oversight. The government in general is not the end all be all of all power and sovereignty. That comes from The People. The government was split into three and given oversight over the other two branches to ensure that law respects the implicit and natural restrictions on government force against freedom.
 
I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours? On what basis did the OWS protestors tell a reporter to leave a meeting to discuss the issue with the city? Where does the city AND the OWS'ers get off keeping the settlement offer, which is in writing, a secret from the public?

So basically, what we have here is a unconstitutional action by a federal judge, to protect the freedom of speech of the OWS'ers, who in turn denied the public THEIR freedom of speech rights to know what they're negotiating with the city.

Raise your hand if this confuses you, too.

I'm not the least bit confused. This is how Liberalism operates.
 
Back
Top Bottom