Judge rules Trump blocking people on Twitter violates the Constitution!

Of all the things Trump is being sued for, this one really takes the cake:

CBS 46 – President Donald Trump can’t ban critics from his Twitter account, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, saying the First Amendment calls for more speech, rather than less, on matters of public concern.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a lower court judge who said Trump violates the Constitution when he blocks critics.

“The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate,” Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel.

The debate generates a “level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen,” the court’s decision read.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” the 2nd Circuit added. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”

The Justice Department did not immediately comment.

This is stupid on steroids. Trump blocking people on Twitter has nothing to do with the First Amendment.



Blocking someone doesn’t prevent them from using their account to say whatever they want to whomever they want (unless they are blocked). It merely keeps someone out of Trump’s timeline. And we’re talking about his personal account, not this POTUS account, which he probably doesn’t use that often.

If the government owned Twitter and it was the officially sanctioned way of citizens getting in touch with government officials, then maybe this ruling might make sense. But it’s nothing of the sort and this ruling is subsequently absurd.

The three judge panel ruled this way unanimously. The main judge in the opinion, Parker, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, but before that was a Clinton appointee to a district court in the SDNY. The second judge, Peter W. Hall, was George W. Bush all the way from district court to the Second Circuit. And lastly, Judge Christopher F. Droney was an Obama appointee to the Second Circuit and a Clinton appointee twice before that.

The irony over this ruling is now there’s talk of a former Democrat suing AOC because she’s blocking people from her timeline as well, just like Trump:

FOX NEWS – Former Democratic New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind told Fox News on Tuesday he’s preparing to sue Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for blocking users on Twitter based on their personal viewpoints, following a federal appeals court ruling barring President Trump from doing the same.

Asked where his lawsuit would be filed and whether other plaintiffs would be involved, Hikind told Fox News in an email, “All that’s being determined at the moment.”

“Most likely we will be [the] only plaintiff, but [we will be] citing other examples,” Hikind continued. “The claim is [the] same as [the] one against Trump. She uses that account for political/policy commentary, so to shut a citizen off from her statements is a problem — as well as blocking me from petitioning her or seeking redress.”

I really think Hikind is just trying to make a point and I seriously doubt he’ll waste money on a lawsuit like this when this ruling against Trump will likely be overturned.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.