What Constitution? Redress of grievances? Fuggedaboutit!!
“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”
This is pretty bad folks, even if you support Trump. I mean, it’s literally written in the Constitution, wow. Just wow. This truly is a tyrannical statement, not hyperbole, no exaggeration needed.
And it’s not on Fox news website lol. Gotta go to work………….
Protesting is a part of our country but why protestors were allowed into a DC chamber that’s discussing a potential SCOTUS justice is a good question? IMO and possibly what the President was referring to is that it could have/should have been avoided. The prostestors should have been allowed but outside. Nothing positive came from being inside. It was insulting to the jurist’s family, accomplished nothing productive and an unnecessary distraction that wasted a lot of precious time.
It would appear he was talking about protesters in the hearing, which, is already illegal, hence the escorts out by police and subsequent arrests. So no, that isn’t protected by the constitution. Free speech and assembly is not the freedom to speak and assemble anywhere and at any time.
You would think the video at the OP’s link of the protesters being removed by police would have provided a clue but I guess not.
“Waste of precious time”? After Mitch left it vacant for over a year? Please.
He’s a mafia boss.
Don’t blame Mitch for Obama being too stupid to realize he had a republican senate that wasn’t going to confirm his liberal scotus choice.
So let me get this straight: Are you saying that even though an action is protected by the Constitution it can be regulated. Like, they can actually regulate when and where that right can be exercised? That even though it’s Constitutionally protected we can’t just do that action anywhere and everywhere we please?
Too stupid? Mitch’s action was unprecedented. Obama only overestimated Republican’s commitment to their job. We’ve entered a new degree of partisan hackery thanks to these jokers.
You’re not going to get an answer…even the guys you’re asking this to know where you’re going to take it next.
Way too obvious a trap…
Since he said they should just throw them out, he was obviously talking about the protestors disrupting Senate hearings.
To allow those people uncontrolled freedom to yell and scream during hearings would be and end to the Senate, as it could no longer function. That is the opposite of the democratic process.
That is why not only should it be illegal for them to trespass and disrupt meetings, but it IS illegal for the to trespass and disrupt meetings. Note that the article said something like 70 of them were arrested.
“I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters." That’s what he said.
“I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters." That’s what he said.
I didn’t see the word “illegal” anywhere in that quote posted in the OP. 
It is against the law to protest at a Congressional Hearing, its a charge that carries up to 6 months in jail and there were 70 arrests although none will be indicted. And if I were the President I would “tweet” about it and see if AG Sessions “retweets”!
The laws have been ignored so many times in liberal controlled cities that it’s not surprising, especially for young people, that they literally do not know what is a lawful/legal protest and what is an unlawful/illegal protest.
When OWS squatted in filth for weeks and months that was an ILLEGAL protest allowed by liberal city officials.
When ANTIFA counter protests without a valid permit and crashes a permitted assembly and/or protest that’s ILLEGAL.
So there are legal and illegal protests and the later has gotten totally out of control and it’s something that the current AG needs to focus on along with the illegal alien invasion.
THIS:
Let the protesters protest. There should be a minimum distance for safety. Pro-Lifers are not allowed to protest next to the door of an abortion clinic, or inside it for that matter. These folks should have to protest across the street.
If they enacted these rules though, there would be a lot less drama and the media craves drama.
That is what he meant, but he dooesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because of his illiberal stance against protestors he doesn’t agree with, and his statements in the past where he displays envy for the way dictators like Kim can control their people.
He himself has disdain for the democratic process.
You tolerate it from him because you believe he gives you what you want.
Continuing from the article:
“He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”
More than 70 people were arrested after they repeatedly heckled Kavanaugh and senators at Tuesday’s hearing.”
Now where were they that they could have been thrown out from?
I was under the impression that
So… which is it? Were the shouting protesters removed, or were they allowed to remain, as the president seems to be indicating?
Yes, why do you ask?
