LBJ’s company was in his wife’s name from the get go but he basically ran it from the Whitehouse. He set the precedent.
Because the Presidency is a helluva a lot of work, and a lot of risk as Trump’s finding out. Better to put someone in office who’d be more flexible to your views.
The office ages people and Trump isn’t exactly in the best of shape.
I wasn’t alive in the 60s to complain about that but I would have if I could have, I’m alive now and I’m complaining.
Bye bye Bannon!
It’s good to know that Trump’s ego is that easily bruised.
H. R. McMaster sounds both like the coolest name and the most made up name I’ve ever heard.
Yeah the Springsteen media has been nuts about it but I don’t want to give another website my credit card information and Grushecky isn’t letting me pay any other way. I’m waiting for somewhere else to offer it, streaming or purchase.
Someone finally uploaded the song to YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPtROINIyY
Here’s something I wrote this morning on the subject:
So I purposefully avoided reading up on this song (as much as someone deep in the Springsteen media can) until it was made available for me to hear it. I feel like it’s being blown out of proportion. It’s a pretty generic and bland message. It doesn’t have the heartbreak of Sinaloa Cowboys, the brutal honesty of 41 Shots, and it’s not addressing anything underrepresented like Streets of Philadelphia did. Even Death to My Home Town from just five years ago felt more powerful than this. When you get past the controversy and listen to it as a song, it’s pretty rocking. It got me nodding my head and excited like Wrecking Ball did. Glad to see Grushecky finally getting some public love from Bruce, too. As long as Bruce has been a big name he’d make cameos at Grushecky shows, but nobody outside New Jersey or the Springsteen fandom has really heard of him.
Not sure where to post this but the creator of the /r/theredpill being exposed as an elected republican has been one of the funniest things of all time. His quotes are just so absurd.
What part of “Congress shall make no law” do people not understand?
ACLU’s gonna ACLU. They probably take the position that, as a publicly-funded university, Berkeley is also obliged not to restrict speech.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the part they don’t understand is the core concept.
@Deadname What part of the 14th amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses do you not understand?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Edit: forgot to nention the due process clause
As Berkeley is a state institution, it falls under the purview of the 14th amendment and, therefore, the first amendment as well.
@anon81580706 If the group withdrew their invitation, that’s one thing, although if the rationale was due to being concerned about the security of their guest… that is certainly a frightening concept, but more one due to individuals blocking free speech than to a government institution blocking free speech.
If she backed out of her own accord, for whatever reason, then yes, free speech hasn’t been violated.
Of course, if the reason she had to back out was because of the possibility of violence from those opposed to her speech, then it is still wrong, even if it the university cannot be blamed for trying to make every reasonable effort possible to give her a safe venue for her speech.
I may lean left, but I don’t care if you’re left-wing or right-wing: using violence to suppress speech you don’t like is just plain wrong.
Based on your linked article I have to change my position on this from I fully support the ACLU to my support of the ACLU is contingent on what actually occurred re: who backed out when.
If safety couldn’t be guaranteed then I’d say the school and police are well within their rights to withdraw their invitation despite being public. If she declined alternative venues then she has no rights to complain her rights were violated.
In fact I’d say the ACLU’s claim to being right hinges on some pretty narrow circumstances. Namely that they refused to let her speak and didn’t propose alternative dates or venues.
In Constitutional law, there are a number of First Amendment cases about something that’s now called the "Heckler’s Veto. The Heckler’s veto comprises either of two situations in which a person who disagrees with a speaker’s message is able to unilaterally trigger events that
result in the speaker being silenced.
In the strict legal sense, a heckler’s veto occurs when the speaker’s right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party’s behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.
In the United States, case law regarding the heckler’s veto is mixed. Most findings say that the
acting party’s actions cannot be preemptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
The best known case involving the heckler’s veto is probably Feiner v. New York, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1951. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, writing for the majority, held that police officers acted within their power in arresting a speaker if the arrest was “motivated solely by a proper concern for the preservation of order and protection of the general welfare”.
In Gregory v. Chicago, Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion, argued that arresting demonstrators as a consequence of unruly behavior of by-standers would amount to a heckler’s veto.
It was rejected in Hill v. Colorado, where the Supreme Court rejected the “Heckler’s Veto,” finding “governmental grants of power to private actors” to be “constitutionally problematic” in cases where “the regulations allowed a single, private actor to unilaterally silence a speaker”.