Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[Dill]

(04-05-2024, 06:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Really? I find that sentence to be laughable at best. If the Democratic Party were the front line of protection of the Constitution, why are they always attempting to squash people's rights granted in the 1st and 2nd Amendments at the State and local levels? As well as infringing upon earnest citizens rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by initiating such policies as doing away with cash bail, putting criminals right back out there to do harm to the hard working, tax paying portion of our society?

The reason it shouldn't be laughable is because Dems are the primary obstacle to the authoritarian GOP front runner who has already tried to void the fundamental basis of democracy: The Vote. And from the get go Trump has been steadily attacking the next necessary foundation of modern democracy--the free press.

But I'm not seeing any rights "squashed" in your claimed examples.  Perhaps they are not specific enough.

No government can tolerate absolute free speech. And since the founding of this country, the argument has been between factions who want it form themselves and not for others. E.g., when Trump founded his "Truth Social" to protect "free speech," he began by forbidding criticism of him or the site. https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/new-social-media-platform-will-bar-users-from-making-disparaging-comments-about-it_partner/.

For 240 years we have had a constant back and forth of proposed policies by each side, which often get taken to court and then reversed. You must be referring to something like that, but I I don't know what, specifically. Perhaps it is the effort to fight disinformation on social media, or efforts to restrict Trump from directing violence against the families of court officers or mocking a rape victim?  I have seen right-wing pushback against "leftist" speech codes on campuses that I agree with because the "leftists" were wrong to restrict speech. But their partial and local policies I never considered a serious threat to democracy.

Same for 2A rights. They cannot be absolute, and communities negotiate their reach. Limiting mag sizes or requiring background checks is neither a threat to democracy nor criminality on the order of calling a state secretary to coerce him into finding votes. 

So far as I know, the cash bail policies you were referring to were motivated by an effort to defend rights of poor and often unemployed people by re-crafting a law which unequally imposed costs on citizens. If the policy turns out to be bad or unworkable, then it can and will be revoked. There is no "threat to democracy" in that normal process.

PS Sounds like you think tax-paying should be a criteria for rights, not citizenship or humanity.