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

Gun Control & RKBA

Straw Man

(6,891 posts)

5. Yes, I do.

Reply to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:45 PM

Feb 2016

You ignored an entire entry that contradicted your assertion that TROs are not violations of due process.

Also, you saw fit not to highlight this part:

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.

TROs rise to the level of "Constitutional dimensions" when they go beyond mere restriction of personal contact to the removal of a Constitutionally protected right. That is obviously much more than a "minor inconvenience."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The danger between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ [View all] SecularMotion Feb 2016 OP

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