this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
332 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4088 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge threatened to kick Donald Trump out of court Wednesday after the former president made repeated comments within earshot of the jury hearing a civil defamation trial against him.

Trump muttered that the case is a “witch hunt,” among other similar comments, according to a lawyer for the writer E. Jean Carroll, who is suing Trump over derogatory comments he made about her while he was president.

The episode prompted a stern rebuke from U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who repeatedly tussled with Trump and his lawyers during a testy courtroom session Wednesday morning.

“Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me,” the judge said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Exactly. A right shouldn't be able to be revoked, otherwise by definition it's not a right.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

You're confusing the word revoked with the word forfeited. He's forfeiting it by disrupting the court. It's like the right to remain silent when you're arrested. The officer arresting you can't revoke it and make you answer or say anything, but you can choose to forfeit it and start talking.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Then you have no rights. All freedoms granted you can be taken away for committing the right crime.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, that's true, that's why there are different types of rights, look up natural rights versus things like inalienable rights. At the end of the day all rights are just ideas and concepts, but still, I think calling it a right and threatening to take it away in the context of his trial is no bueno

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

Myself, I'm more with Jeremy Bentham and George Carlin in this:

Rights don't exist, there is no such thing as a natural or inalienable right. Rights are flimsy fantasies, they are nothing but societal agreements, contracts to treat with each other on a common set of core-values. Which makes it all the more important that we defend these rights and enforce those social contracts.

And with those rights come the duties to respect those of others, like the right of the litigant to not have their trial disrupted.

Edit: Marking the quote.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Does imprisonment invalidate the right to freedom?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I mean, Fuck Trump, but yeah...