A federal judge threatened to kick Donald Trump out of court Wednesday after the former president made repeated comments within earshot of the jury hearing a civil defamation trial against him.
Trump muttered that the case is a “witch hunt,” among other similar comments, according to a lawyer for the writer E. Jean Carroll, who is suing Trump over derogatory comments he made about her while he was president.
The episode prompted a stern rebuke from U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who repeatedly tussled with Trump and his lawyers during a testy courtroom session Wednesday morning.
“Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me,” the judge said.
Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive…
Doesn’t that make it a privilege?
Exactly. A right shouldn’t be able to be revoked, otherwise by definition it’s not a right.
Then you have no rights. All freedoms granted you can be taken away for committing the right crime.
Sure, that’s true, that’s why there are different types of rights, look up natural rights versus things like inalienable rights. At the end of the day all rights are just ideas and concepts, but still, I think calling it a right and threatening to take it away in the context of his trial is no bueno
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one’s actions, such as by violating someone else’s rights).
Myself, I’m more with Jeremy Bentham and George Carlin in this:
Rights don’t exist, there is no such thing as a natural or inalienable right. Rights are flimsy fantasies, they are nothing but societal agreements, contracts to treat with each other on a common set of core-values. Which makes it all the more important that we defend these rights and enforce those social contracts.
And with those rights come the duties to respect those of others, like the right of the litigant to not have their trial disrupted.
Edit: Marking the quote.
He just seems like the kind of guy who’s never been punched in the face but really needs to be.
I’d prefer shot with a bologna loaf out of a canon but yea agreed
I tried loading lunch meat into my canon but it developed a film.
This was such an intricately crafted joke that my brain almost couldn’t handle it.
I’m still waiting for someone to ask for an explanation and someone (possibly else) to provide one.
- Cannon - A big ass gun
- Canon - A camera brand
With those two pieces I’m sure it will click for you ;)
Thanks, but theae were references even I understood immediately. I’m struggling with the connection between lunch meat and film developing.
The first poster suggested shooting bologna out of a cannon, but spelled it like a camera. The second poster then noted that when he put meat into his camera, it developed a film. Like when you leave meat out it may grow a film of biological yuck, but with a masterful pun attached due it being a comment about a camera.
Thanks folks. I’ll be here ruining jokes by explaining them all day! Don’t forget to tip your waitstaff!
Aaaand that’s why two of his lawyers withdrew only shortly before the trial one even just the day before. They realised how unhinged he is and that there was no way to stop him, so they left the sinking ship.
