Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
4. You accuse me of cherry picking?
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:07 AM
Feb 2016

From the same comment you cited above:

So all TROs are compromises based on public policy. Because the subject ex parte Temporary Restraining Order is really just a minor inconvenience, it is not a significant due process deprivation of Constitutional dimensions.

Repeat: These ARE deprivations of Constitutionally promised due process. However, because TROs serve the interests of society by protecting potentially innocent victims from potential violence, weighed against the civil rights of the individual, they are allowable deprivations. Remember, these are TEMPORARY.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Slanted. beevul Feb 2016 #1
Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process SecularMotion Feb 2016 #2
Picking cherries again? Straw Man Feb 2016 #3
You accuse me of cherry picking? SecularMotion Feb 2016 #4
Yes, I do. Straw Man Feb 2016 #5
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The danger between ‘tempo...»Reply #4