Humor, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

What Was The Basis For The Court Order?

17 Comments

So I read this AP piece twice, which if one is to believe the headline, was all about the restraining order against the city to prevent them from removing the Obamaville in Zuccotti Park, and nowhere in it could I find out what the basis was for the order. Well, I guess the reason that it isn’t mentioned is that there isn’t one, and the leftist loon former-ACLU-lawyer judge who signed it has been tossed off the case.

[Update a couple minutes later]

The top ten eviction tweets.

[Update a while later]

The cities coordinated the crackdown. And I’m sure this is just a coincidence: “…this succession of police raids started after President Obama left the US for an extended tour of the Pacific Rim.”

17 thoughts on “What Was The Basis For The Court Order?”

    1. I liked these two:

      8. @ExJon Nothing funnier than hearing Marxists complain about the state taking their property. #OWS

      7. @derekahunter Funny how quickly the #OWS crowd went from “Everything belongs to everyone” to “Hey, that’s my stuff!” #OccupyWallStNYC #MicCheck #p2

  2. Watched the live stream from the Portland chapter of OWS getting evicted on Ustream for a while the other night. It was interesting to hear the unfiltered comments from the protesters.

    1. Since they’re all well-educated, valuable, yet disaffected members of society (and not “hippies” in any sense), I am certain the comments were in the Queen’s English and free of “colorful” metaphors.

        1. Heh, I’m thinking the actual gestures flashed at the “pigs” were far less esoteric; I’m not going to make that emoticon on Rand’s site…

  3. I guess with so many people (being well above the threshold of one for keeping a secret) listening in on this “conference call”, someone was going to blab. But it is interesting that we apparently hear from the mayor of Oakland first.

  4. The basis is probably “sleep deprivation.” I suspect that most judges would do the same thing if you woke them up in the middle of the night — sign a temporary order preserving the status quo and let the court figure it out the next day when everyone’s awake.

      1. If she signed the order at 6:30, she presumably was woken earlier and spent some time writing it.

        Starting work at 6:30 am is a normal daily routine? I think you’re confusing judges with dairy farmers.

        2. Starting work at 6:30 isn’t necessarily a normal daily routine, but being sleep deprived when woken at that hour would indicate a non-normal routine.

  5. Watch it Wright.
    I resemble those remarks. Anyway what do you have aginst squezing teats in the early morning hours.

    The earliest reports gave the reasoning as the demonstrators were not clearly notified that they could not camp in the park early in their takeover.

  6. The earliest reports gave the reasoning as the demonstrators were not clearly notified that they could not camp in the park early in their takeover.

    This is what I suspect was the rational given. Both NYC and Brookfield vassilated on the subject of enforcing the law and their rights. Their indecision would reasonably give the protestors a sense that what they were doing was legal. I may not agree with the judge’s decision, but I think the original mistake was made by NYC and Brookfield.

  7. The public health concerns could not be justified a priori but after the dysentery and the lice and the rapes, that case could easily be made.

    Oh, and if you leave your property in a public park you should expect the local government to throw it in the trash as a simple act of public sanitation.

Comments are closed.