Judge Rules Against US Constitution, Sides With 1%

Spread the love

As you know, Mayor Bloomberg, the Billionaire Mayor of New York City and Poster Boy for the 1%, had the police rather violently toss the Occupy Wall Street protesters out of the park they were occupying during the dark of night very early this morning. The idea, according to Bloomberg, who has never been that good at telling the truth but strangely not that good at telling lies either, was to clean up the park and let the protesters back in. But … they would not be allowed to bring things like blankets and sleeping gear and tents, which would be necessarily to actually occupy the space.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman denied a motion made on behalf of the Occupy protesters to bring the tents and sleeping bags back in.

I quickly add that in New York, “Supreme Court” is actually the LOWER court at the state level; The higher court is the Appellate Court. I don’t know if this is going to be brought to a higher court or if, perhaps, things will be settled on Thursday when protesters across the country storm the banks and break all their windows.

Source, but not much more in the way of details, here.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

11 thoughts on “Judge Rules Against US Constitution, Sides With 1%

  1. Strange – over here in Germany, the radio has been reporting that a NY judge had allowed the protesters back, with tents, and Bloomberg wanted to appeal. No details, of course.

    I have no idea what to make of that.

  2. @2 Right to peaceful assembly, I’m sure. It’s in the First Amendment.

    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.

  3. The idea…was to clean up the park and let the protesters back in.

    And that was after they (law enforcement) threw out all the tents and other possessions the protestors couldn’t take with them, right? Good way to really make the protesters upset, I’d think. So, yeah, probably not the best move on Bloomberg’s part. As you suggest, Greg, the protesters will probably be breaking stuff for sure now, come Thursday.

  4. khms: That was an earlier injunction, this is the result of the mayor’s appeal.

    Right, the right of free assembly.

    I can’t believe that in this day in age the Mayor of New York can be such as clueless bumbling idiot.

  5. Thanks, I figured that was the one. I don’t know much about that particular right, but I do know that like freedom of speech it’s subject to reasonable restrictions related to time, space, and manner.

    I’m not saying that the court was right to deny the injunction, but the federal Supreme Court has made space for people like Bloomberg to hide when they try to curtail peaceful protests.

  6. Not much room to hide here. This is a public space that happens to be privately owned (not by the city or county) designed for public gatherings. If there was ever a place for a long term occupation, this is it.

    Bloomberg and this particular judge have decided that enough is enough; the constitution stops working just shy of three months.

  7. I could be mistaken about this and I’m not trying to be contrary here but my understanding from what I was told on the Aussie TV news is that the protesters are free to *assemble* and protest during the day but just NOT to camp overnight in the park and put up permanent banners there. Is that correct?

    If so, while we may not like it, that does seem fair enough and not violating the US constitution doesn’t it?

    1. SteveR: Sort of: The Constitution and subsequent case law doesn’t really talk about overnight vs. overday, so they can stay over night. They just can’t have tents or blankets or sleeping bags. This does not clearly violate NOR does it clearly NOT violate the constitution. Their form of free speech is to stay round the clock and “occupy” public space. I think NYC would lose on that ground if it want to a higher court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.