No 1st amendment rights at SCOTUS..OUTSIDE !

The Supreme Court is designated as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights,...

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the restrictions. “It cannot possibly be consistent with the First Amendment for the government to so broadly prohibit expression in virtually any form in front of a courthouse, even the Supreme Court,” Howell wrote in a 68-page opinion.

Within days, the Supreme Court instituted its own rules that essentially kept the restrictions in place, and the legal fight has continued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...9ae262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html


This showcases what's wrong with this country ...

davidmcbeth said:

This showcases what's wrong with this country ...

Click to expand...

That too many don't understand court rulings?

In the last 2 weeks I've walked down the steps from the Supreme Court building. Imposing some restrictions on protesting on the steps or on the very portico of the Supreme Court building doesn't show anything wrong. The sidewalk in front of the steps is open and provides as much or more access to the public to see protesters as being on the steps or on the porch at the top of the steps.

The court is supposed to be apolitical and insulated from public sentiment anyway. The time and place to protest is at the capital or white house when laws are being decided.

Would you have protesters in the very courtroom as arguments are being heard?

Charles

Nothing new here

utbagpiper said:

That too many don't understand court rulings?

In the last 2 weeks I've walked down the steps from the Supreme Court building. Imposing some restrictions on protesting on the steps or on the very portico of the Supreme Court building doesn't show anything wrong. The sidewalk in front of the steps is open and provides as much or more access to the public to see protesters as being on the steps or on the porch at the top of the steps.

The court is supposed to be apolitical and insulated from public sentiment anyway. The time and place to protest is at the capital or white house when laws are being decided.

Would you have protesters in the very courtroom as arguments are being heard?

Charles

Click to expand...

This rule has been in place for at least 40 years. I was on a protest in 1973 and we had to stay in the park across the street.

We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others.

color of law said:

We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others.

Click to expand...

You got that right. And of course as SCOTUS is in DC the right to bear arms is a special privilege which results in these further illegal behaviors

Well, interesting point of view here:

if this decision goes to SCOTUS as a case / certiorari it becomes a more interesting case.

Why?

well, legal necessity would have the court rule on its own rules.

However, the rules were made by the current justices ... they cannot rule on their own rules, conflict of interest.

So, the law may require all of these dummies to resign and allow a new set of justices to hear this case.

I've had judges tell me I cannot complain or file a grievance in open court .... this does not end well for the judge as I know that my first amendment rights do not end on any door threshold. The line is wherein the free speech actually interferes with proceedings...that's the line in respect to the law and any type of proceeding.

You can generally yell whatever you want during your general assembly meetings as long as it does not interfere with the proceedings (so, when a pause of speaking at a GA meeting, like clapping that occurs frequently -- then you can yell whatever you want during the clapping -- it is not interfering with the process that is occurring).

The idea that you cannot stand on the steps of a public building and give speech violates the first amendment unless it truly interferes with proceedings that are ongoing is an idea that is abhorrent to Americans.... (which can never happen unless they are holding open court outside).

I don't need permission from any gov't official .... I complain all the time inside courthouses and sometimes during court proceedings. They don't like it: too bad. Go get another job.

color of law said:

We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others.

Click to expand...

No---- we are all "created" equal. What is done or accomplished after is entirely up to the induvidual!
However in the context of the law in a just system we are all equal under the law.

Nightmare said:

I do not have qualified immunity or any measure of judicial discretion.

Click to expand...

I refer you to the last sentence of my post you quoted! I can see in some instances where QI is appropriate, just as a No Knock Warrant might be justified in some very limited instances; however, no where near to the frequency where either one is used.

JoeSparky said:

I refer you to the last sentence of my post you quoted! I can see in some instances where QI is appropriate, just as a No Knock Warrant might be justified in some very limited instances; however, no where near to the frequency where either one is used.

Click to expand...

QI is a construct of the law enforcement/judiciary complex. If a cop is following the law as written QI is not required.

Eliminate QI and all exemptions in the laws that the law enforcement/judiciary complex enjoy.

OC for ME said:

QI is a construct of the law enforcement/judiciary complex. If a cop is following the law as written QI is not required.

Eliminate QI and all exemptions in the laws that the law enforcement/judiciary complex enjoy.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately NOBODY knows the law. There are too many of them. The law should have no strict liability. For anyone.