• 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 said:
Perry, a TRO is an extraordinary remedy. It is supposed to only be granted when the rights of the parties will be irreparably harmed by the time litigation is finished AND the moving party can make a showing that there is a substantial likelihood of success.

In this case, I'd say the "likelihood of success" at trial of proving any Cincinnati park ordinance to be unconstitutional is about 1 in 1 Million. This TRO should NOT have been granted.
Click to expand...

agreed and Judge Dlott is probably in error when she says that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits

these types of laws have been upheld hundreds of times meaning that a facial challenge of the law is probably doomed

the other grounds would be a finding that it is not likely the plaintiffs violated the law which of course is bunk
 
apdst said:
The rights of the OWS'ers override the rights of everyone else.
Click to expand...

If someone had forced a Tea Party rally to disperse so that kids could trick-or-treat, you'd be screaming bloody murder about how DESCENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTIC (sic)
 
JUDGE DLOTT HAS lifted the stay and the protestors are NOW BEING TICKETED at 105 bucks a shot.

Good. She upheld the ordinance now.

they are interviewing some really clueless clowns who have no clue about time and manner restrictions which are usually upheld

The city of cincinnati has wasted a lot of money dealing with these turds-with over 25,000 in fines mounting up, hopefully they can get some of it back
 
Deuce said:
If someone had forced a Tea Party rally to disperse so that kids could trick-or-treat, you'd be screaming bloody murder about how DESCENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTIC (sic)
Click to expand...

remind me where the tea party violated curfews and park closing rules?
 
I have protested a lot....I always walked in a parade; I never did a sit-in. Here are some things I have protested for:

* Free Soviet Jews. (Done.)

* End The Vietnam War. (Done.)

* Civil Rights. (Done.)

* Feminisim a la abortion rights, equal pay, etc. (Not done.)

Can ANYONE tell what the OWS'ers are "protesting"? Against whom do they have a complaint and what do they want done to correct it? What are their demands? Does ANYONE know or do we all just get to infer whatever we like about their intent?

BTW, I have never broken the law in any protest and IMO, a sit-in at a college president's office is (legally) not comparable to occupying city parks for weeks on end.
 
Pinkie said:
"Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" is the essence of constitutional government restrictions on freedom of speech or assembly. If the city meets this burden, and IMO, they certainly will, then the OWS'ers lose.
Click to expand...

I think it's very conditional on what you're talking about. A Republic cannot exist without protest, assembly, redress, etc. That overrides convenience of not having campers. Now if they were rioting or assaulting folk or committing crime I can see the necessity to involve government force. But I do believe that protest and assembly must be upheld to their maximum.
 
Pinkie said:
Apparently so. They must be very speshell.

:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say so. I would support any protest of this nature to stay on public land overnight. It's refreshing to see such dedication to a political cause; whether I agree with it or not.
 
Ikari said:
I wouldn't say so. I would support any protest of this nature to stay on public land overnight. It's refreshing to see such dedication to a political cause; whether I agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

What fukkin' political cause, Ikari?
 
Ikari said:
I think it's very conditional on what you're talking about. A Republic cannot exist without protest, assembly, redress, etc. That overrides convenience of not having campers. Now if they were rioting or assaulting folk or committing crime I can see the necessity to involve government force. But I do believe that protest and assembly must be upheld to their maximum.
Click to expand...

So does the Supreme Court. "Reasonable" limits on time, place and manner is no loosey-goosey, feel-good standard. As you likely recall, the benighted Westboro Baptist Church recently WON on this issue.

Closing city parks at night IS reasonable. I'd be surprised if it hadn't already been litigated up to at least a few of the Federal Appeals Courts, though as far as I know, not the Supreme Court.
 
Pinkie said:
Can ANYONE tell what the OWS'ers are "protesting"? Against whom do they have a complaint and what do they want done to correct it? What are their demands? Does ANYONE know or do we all just get to infer whatever we like about their intent?
Click to expand...

They are protesting runaway corporate profiteering, that sacrifices any responsibility to the community, to truth, to operating under the law, to worker's rights and treatment, and even to the longterm validity of their product in order to jack up profits for the coming quarter and get bigger bonuses for the top owners and executives as quickly as possible. And they are protesting the complicity that many officials in government, from all areas in the political spectrum, have had in protecting the ability of these few beneficiaries of this system to continue to reap these inordinate profits at the expense of everyone else.

There it is in ninety-nine words.

Pinkie said:
BTW, I have never broken the law in any protest and IMO, a sit-in at a college president's office is (legally) not comparable to occupying city parks for weeks on end.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. Legally they're pretty much the same. A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. If the OWS protesters were committing felonies, that would be entirely different. But they aren't.
 
Okay, I missed a part... What they want to do about it is to regulate these businesses so they can't do that anymore. Impose duties on them to act ethically, with stiffer penalties, throw the corrupt @$$holes who commit these transgressions in prison, and stop allowing corporate money to determine elections.

Now it's up to 145 words. I hope that's still concise enough.
 
Pinkie said:
I have protested a lot....I always walked in a parade; I never did a sit-in. Here are some things I have protested for:

* Free Soviet Jews. (Done.)

* End The Vietnam War. (Done.)

* Civil Rights. (Done.)

* Feminisim a la abortion rights, equal pay, etc. (Not done.)

Can ANYONE tell what the OWS'ers are "protesting"? Against whom do they have a complaint and what do they want done to correct it? What are their demands? Does ANYONE know or do we all just get to infer whatever we like about their intent?

BTW, I have never broken the law in any protest and IMO, a sit-in at a college president's office is (legally) not comparable to occupying city parks for weeks on end.
Click to expand...

Ok, from what I am gathering from a number of comments I've heard, the protesters are intentionally NOT making concrete claims at this point because the minute they do the political propaganda machines will grab it and run.

By remaining present, and in the public eye, the entire country is TALKING about our problems.

By encouraging speculation, they are fomenting conversation, creating an informational vacuum that is causing actual discussion of the issues at the core of our current crisis.

Brilliantly playing our public relations driven system against itself.
 
What if...? said:
Ok, from what I am gathering from a number of comments I've heard, the protesters are intentionally NOT making concrete claims at this point because the minute they do the political propaganda machines will grab it and run.

By remaining present, and in the public eye, the entire country is TALKING about our problems.

By encouraging speculation, they are fomenting conversation, creating an informational vacuum that is causing actual discussion of the issues at the core of our current crisis.

Brilliantly playing our public relations driven system against itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, if generating pointless bull****-laden drama is the ultimate goal.
 
Paschendale said:
They are protesting runaway corporate profiteering, that sacrifices any responsibility to the community, to truth, to operating under the law, to worker's rights and treatment, and even to the longterm validity of their product in order to jack up profits for the coming quarter and get bigger bonuses for the top owners and executives as quickly as possible. And they are protesting the complicity that many officials in government, from all areas in the political spectrum, have had in protecting the ability of these few beneficiaries of this system to continue to reap these inordinate profits at the expense of everyone else.

There it is in ninety-nine words.
Click to expand...

Lovely slogan, and congrats on the word count. But how exactly is this slogan to be APPLIED?

For example:

* Do they want an amendment to the constitution, overturning Citizens United?

* Do they want to reform the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and related laws?

* Do they want some specific action from the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

My point is, whining is not (or should not be) in and of itself the goal of grassroots political action. And what, exactly, do these people think the mayor of Cincinnati can do to achieve any goal pertaining to reform of the corporate laws of each of the 50 states, US banking law, US securities law, etc.?

That's not really true. Legally they're pretty much the same. A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. If the OWS protesters were committing felonies, that would be entirely different. But they aren't.
Click to expand...

Legally, a misdemeanor can have a variety of degrees, just like a felony. However, I was speaking of ethics. Sit-ins did not destroy green spaces. They did not destroy irreplaceable natural resources. They did not create a risk of a public health hazard. They did not persist for weeks, on end, without any discernable end-game in mind.
 
Pinkie said:
Yes, if generating pointless bull****-laden drama is the ultimate goal.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're so mad at them.

Partisanship has gotten so bad that Americans don't talk. They talk AT each other not TO each other.

Theyre talking about income disparity, wage stagnation, money's negative effect on our politics, ALL OVER the media and blogosphere.

I think the OWS phenomenon is dragging the whole stinking mess out on the rug for the cat to sniff.

I'm going to bed, but I think this tactic actually has a name. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, there would be no objections to removing those who are not citizens of that particular county then.. eh?
 
What if...? said:
I don't know why you're so mad at them.

Partisanship has gotten so bad that Americans don't talk. They talk AT each other not TO each other.

Theyre talking about income disparity, wage stagnation, money's negative effect on our politics, ALL OVER the media and blogosphere.

I think the OWS phenomenon is dragging the whole stinking mess out on the rug for the cat to sniff.

I'm going to bed, but I think this tactic actually has a name. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Yes this tactic has a name.

It's called a "tantrum".
 
Ikari said:
Yes, and the contention is that they are not camping but rather assembling and protesting.
Click to expand...

The sidewalk is rarely ever closed (except in cases of construction, for safety reasons).... you want to assemble at all hours of the day and night... go there.

I think its funny how people think all normal rules of society can be broken in the name of protest.........

So what you are saying is that I can't go play basketball at the courts at the local park after hours, but If I am there for the purpose of "assembling" then I can go? Abso-****ing-lutely ignorant.
 
Ikari said:
I think it's very conditional on what you're talking about. A Republic cannot exist without protest, assembly, redress, etc. That overrides convenience of not having campers. Now if they were rioting or assaulting folk or committing crime I can see the necessity to involve government force. But I do believe that protest and assembly must be upheld to their maximum.
Click to expand...

So... uhh.... in the name of "Protest"... can I key your car now?
 
Caine said:
The sidewalk is rarely ever closed (except in cases of construction, for safety reasons).... you want to assemble at all hours of the day and night... go there.

I think its funny how people think all normal rules of society can be broken in the name of protest.........

So what you are saying is that I can't go play basketball at the courts at the local park after hours, but If I am there for the purpose of "assembling" then I can go? Abso-****ing-lutely ignorant.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree of course. But I also wonder, aren't any of these OWSers environmentalists? Why's there absolutely zero concern for the impact they are having on our green spaces?

We used to parade in the downtown area, or towards a building of significance, like the courthouse, state capitol, etc. On pavement, and we were (usually) gone the same day we arrived. The parades I personally participated in actually had parade permits.

Rather different from holding a massive, weeks-long jamboree/hoedown/Woodstock reenactment for people who want to complain, but evidentially have not even one definite idea to promote as to how to improve matters.
 
Ikari said:
I think it's very conditional on what you're talking about. A Republic cannot exist without protest, assembly, redress, etc. That overrides convenience of not having campers. Now if they were rioting or assaulting folk or committing crime I can see the necessity to involve government force. But I do believe that protest and assembly must be upheld to their maximum.
Click to expand...

Well, I consider urban green spaces to be "necessary to the general welfare". You seem to think that unless a riot or a cholera epidemic breaks out, the city and its residents have no interests to protect.

Ever been to a farm after it had hosted a festival with thousands of attendees for a weekend? Did you happen to notice all the groundcover had been destroyed, the land was nothing but ozzing mud, litter tended to accumulate, etc.?
 
Paschendale said:
Okay, I missed a part... What they want to do about it is to regulate these businesses so they can't do that anymore. Impose duties on them to act ethically, with stiffer penalties, throw the corrupt @$$holes who commit these transgressions in prison, and stop allowing corporate money to determine elections.

Now it's up to 145 words. I hope that's still concise enough.
Click to expand...

Feel free to post at whatever length you wish, Paschendale.

:)

We had several laws on the books that went unenforced over time, across party lines. One such prohibits any merger between publicly-traded companies when that merger would result in harm to the market, public, etc. There are extremely strict rules and laws in place for measuring this, and yet the Big Banks were permitted to continue to merge and acquire until they reached their current size. The concentration of banks in this country has been going on since at least the 1980's.

They could legally be ordered TODAY to break up, and it's Obama and Holder who refuse to do so.

"Corporate greed" is a misnomer; corporations are only legal entities. The humans who run them and own them have always been in need of restraint, else they abuse the workers, the public, the environment, etc. for profit. It's not some surge in greed that caused the Great Recession and there's no possibility whatsoever that we can legislate that only people with "higher ethics" or "less greed" may run them.

You want to advocate for better regulation of banks, or publicly traded companies in general? Fine by me...but AT LEAST direct that protest to the people who are fukkin' you over. Not the private property owners, the corporate managers, etc.

You are being fukked by your president and his entire executive branch, your Congress, your governor and state legislators, etc.

(This is why I believe the energy being put into the OWS protests would be better spent trying to get a constitutional amendment passed to repeal Citizens United.)
 
TurtleDude said:
JUDGE DLOTT HAS lifted the stay and the protestors are NOW BEING TICKETED at 105 bucks a shot.

Good. She upheld the ordinance now.

they are interviewing some really clueless clowns who have no clue about time and manner restrictions which are usually upheld

The city of cincinnati has wasted a lot of money dealing with these turds-with over 25,000 in fines mounting up, hopefully they can get some of it back
Click to expand...

So essentially this was a much ado about nothing. A judge did a rather standard thing, putting a temporary hold on enforcing a law while they're making a decision, made a decision and then things went forward. The horror.

Our legal system is founded on principles that shows its focus is on giving the PUBLIC the benefit of the doubt, not the government. Thus innocent until proven guilty. If a law is questionable it is far more fair to the public and in line with our countries legal philosophy to hold off on punishing them until the law is ruled upon and IF its found to be legitimate THEN begin to punish them rather than punish them first and if it turns out the law was wrong try to rectify the situation.

More than that its more fiscally responsable as well as you're not having to expend government resources in fixing the mistake you previously made by continuing to enforce an unreasonable law.

The Judge put a hold on a law for a minute amount of time, made a decision, and its going forward. The fact it got this much of a hubub, and such a partisan one, is sad.
 
Pinkie said:

Can ANYONE tell what the OWS'ers are "protesting"? Against whom do they have a complaint and what do they want done to correct it? What are their demands? Does ANYONE know or do we all just get to infer whatever we like about their intent?
Click to expand...

sp_1204_03.jpg

"We Want More Money"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom