Using the threat of prosecution based on flimsy accusations of violence is a preferred tactic by the GOP to justify shutting down legitimate protests. The Trump admin tried it in 2017 and several states have passed laws that try to make protesting risky by making it so that anyone person doing something can get the entire thing declared a “riot” so they can send in riot cops to shut the whole thing down. This has nothing to do with the coddled, entitled idiots protesting lawful efforts to protect public health. Wisconsin SC got it right. They didn’t stop the stay at home orders. They ruled that the governor lacked the legal authority to do it unilaterally. They properly ruled that any such order needed to be with the consent of the house and senate… Maybe actually read the transcripts instead of watching CNN. I don’t think any lawsuit is going to stop people from taking to the streets. They may make that rule, but let them try to enforce it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Telling an angry alabama girl to calm down shirt for a redress of grievances. That’s a really strange mishmash of an article. I am sympathetic to BLM. The gun-toting protestors/domestic terrorists attempting to intimidate government officials who are trying to protect public health in a pandemic are another matter. So you’re sympathetic to someone protesting for someone who assaulted an old man on camera and who assaulted a police officer and reached for his weapon and ended up tasting one? How about protesting for innocent men and women gunned down by the police instead of an actual criminal? And I know several democrats that were at the Michigan rally and the Virginia rally. Democrats own guns too.