Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should “it’s legal” be the standard for human behavior.
When one person is trying to impose their own beliefs or standards on another person's actions, then YES, the "it's legal" is a perfectly legitimate reason for continuing to do what you're doing.
What if I objected to what some leftist is doing because it doesn't appeal to my sense of "right"? Should I be able to stop the leftist from doing their thing just because I don't think it's right? No, of course not. And the same logic works both ways.
Am I being dense or??? I see no evidence that anyone was intimidated. Existing, is not intimidation. AZ does not have a civilian CCP measure (or at least did not last time I was there) so being OPENLY armed is not only the norm, its REQUIRED.
Did these mystery men point guns or shout things? it seems thus far no case is being made.
It wasn't laughed out of court. The judge that denied the complaint basically told the Senior Citizens group what they needed to do to win.
It was appealed and a Federal judge granted a restraining order, and gave the complaintants every thing they asked for. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...2022-11-01.pdf
They're still allowed to monitor drop boxes. The plaintiffs did not get everything they originally asked for (their claim that they would suffer irreparable harm was especially interesting).
The defendants have to now comply with a bunch of directives from the judge through election day. They could probably fight some of them as unconstitutional but they'll most likely just comply.
They're still allowed to monitor drop boxes. The plaintiffs did not get everything they originally asked for (their claim that they would suffer irreparable harm was especially interesting).
The defendants have to now comply with a bunch of directives from the judge through election day. They could probably fight some of them as unconstitutional but they'll most likely just comply.
I drove by the 3rd street downtown again and no one there watching anymore, and a friend in Mesa said the same likely been scared off by all the legal action. The US attorney for Arizona mentioned pending charges that kind of legal trouble would scare most off even if it was a bluff.
They're still allowed to monitor drop boxes. The plaintiffs did not get everything they originally asked for (their claim that they would suffer irreparable harm was especially interesting).
The defendants have to now comply with a bunch of directives from the judge through election day. They could probably fight some of them as unconstitutional but they'll most likely just comply.
All "irreparable harm" means is that the problem can't be fixed with money or cannot be returned to the original conditions. Tearing down a historical building is an example, or pouring toxic waste into a river. Denying people their constitutional rights is usually called irreparable harm.
It's a requirement when filing for temporary restraining orders.
They're allowed to monitor so long as they stay 75 feet away, may not follow anyone approaching a ballotbox even if they're more than 75 feet away from the box, are not allowed to initiate speech to voters, may not display weapons or body armor within 250 feet.
And no doxing voters. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
other persons in active concert or participation with them are RESTRAINED from
engaging themselves or training, organizing, encouraging, or directing others to:
a. In connection with any specific claim that individuals committed
voter fraud based solely on the fact that they deposited multiple ballots in a drop box, post
online or otherwise disseminate images or recordings of, or personal information about,
individuals who return ballots to a drop box, including but not limited to information about
the individuals’ identity, their distinguishing features, their license plate number, model
and make of car, and/or similar information; or
b. Take photos of or otherwise record individuals who are within 75 feet
of a ballot drop box.
2. Defendants shall cease and desist making false statements about Arizona
Revised Statutes § 16-1005 immediately through the close of voting on Election Day 2022
That last one, though: "Defendants shall cease and desist making false statements about Arizona
Revised Statutes § 16-1005 immediately through the close of voting on Election Day 2022", I dunno how far will get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
