Posted on 07/24/2016 2:43:14 PM PDT by lowbridge
An attorney was removed from court and taken into custody after a judge declared her in contempt for refusing to take off a Black Lives Matter pin.
Youngstown Municipal Court Judge Robert Milich said Attorney Andrea Burton was in contempt of court for refusing to remove the pin in his courtroom as instructed. Burton was sentenced to five days in jail, but she has been released on a stay while an appeal is underway.
Burton will stay out of jail during the appeals process as long as she obeys Milich’s order not to wear items that make a political statement in court. If she loses her appeal, she will have to serve the five days in jail.
Milich said his opinions have nothing to do with his decision.
“A judge doesn’t support either side,” he said. “A judge is objective and tries to make sure everyone has an opportunity to have a fair hearing, and it was a situation where it was just in violation of the law,” he said.
The Youngstown branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said its legal counsel is monitoring the case closely as it may violate Burton’s civil rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at wishtv.com ...
Well, then . . . the next time you face a jury trial for, by way of example, shooting someone who has broken into your house, I’ll ask you how you feel about the prosecuting attorney wearing a “Guns are Evil” t-shirt.
*shrug* — I think it'd be rather fun to point it out to the jury, since they're the ones I'd have to convince. Also, it would make it pretty clear that the prosecution is, well, prosecution.
Good luck with that, let me know how your theory plays out in your jurisdiction . . . "Your Honor, I don't mind the prejudicial stuff--my theory is that I will win on the merits." [belly laugh]
In theory I don't have to win on merits, but the prosecution has to prove my guilt.
This would be difficult to do given the state laws here.
Moreover, I would enjoy calling the prosecution to the stand.
You poor thing.
You’re clueless.
Yes, the judge can be appealed. He will still run his courtroom by what he thinks is right.
That’s really got to drive you crazy. LMAO
I didn't say he couldn't, but you apparently cannot look to principles and philosophies behind something which is what I've been talking about the whole time.
So it’s your principles and philosophy that guides you to defend someone honoring and promoting the Black Lives movement within a courtroom.
Number one, what principles would that display?
Two, that’s a very problematic philosophy.
You will probably respond that this isn’t what you intended at all. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
By raising these issues at this point, I cannot dismiss the fact that’s exactly what the end result is.
This is a thread about someone honoring and promoting the Black Lives movement within a courtroom. It’s a poor place to expound on the Judge’s limitations. I think he was sell within reason to address the woman on the issue.
I wish we had more judges like that.
It tells me it’s very unlikely he’s an Obama appointee.
I'm not defending them, I'm defending their right to have and express an opinion or belief. Why? Because if I don't do it for those who possess beliefs I do not agree with, then I both betray generations of my family's service in the armed forces AND can reasonably expect that that same denial can/will be applied to my expression of beliefs.
I'm not saying that actions should not have consequences, I am questioning the extent of the authority of a judge as well as the trustworthiness thereof: this particular judge claimed there was a law covering this, I ask What law?
.
Number one, what principles would that display?
See the above.
The US is not built upon unlimited authority at any point in governance. (That place belongs to God alone, even if you don't ascribe to Judeo-Christian values it is abundantly clear from our founding documents.)
Two, that’s a very problematic philosophy.
Howso?
You will probably respond that this isn’t what you intended at all. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
Perhaps there's a bit of miscommunication -- there are two philosophical issues (of Justice, jurisprudence, and integrity) here:
1) the Judge is explicitly claiming there is a law that supports him, he is implicitly claiming that it is federal in scope and also that the USSC had the proper authority in the case cited, possibly relying on another implicit assumption that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
2) even if such a law was extant, would it be Just? (In light of #1, it certainly creates a dissonance with the First Amendment which put the constraint on Congress against passing laws on speech/press precisely to protect political speech.)
By raising these issues at this point, I cannot dismiss the fact that’s exactly what the end result is.
This is a thread about someone honoring and promoting the Black Lives movement within a courtroom. It’s a poor place to expound on the Judge’s limitations. I think he was sell within reason to address the woman on the issue.
Is it?
Why?
I wish we had more judges like that.
I wish we had more judges that respected the Constitution and the fact that it limits government not grants rights.
It tells me it’s very unlikely he’s an Obama appointee.
There are plenty of non-Obama appointees which are not Just judges.
You are completely lost in space on this issue.
You seek to use lofty ideals to justify the furtherance of terrorism.
These people are networking to assassinate police officers. Police officers are the enforcement arm of the courts. Without them no justice exists. No laws are enforced resulting in anarchy.
Despite this, you see no reason why a judge would take offense to heralding and validating a terrorist group intent in part on destroying police officers.
You are way in over your head on this.
I've not justified the furtherance of terrorism, you are reading other things into what I've said.
These people are networking to assassinate police officers. Police officers are the enforcement arm of the courts. Without them no justice exists. No laws are enforced resulting in anarchy.
Irrelevant to the points I've brought up.
Despite this, you see no reason why a judge would take offense to heralding and validating a terrorist group intent in part on destroying police officers.
Who said that he'd have to herald and validate if he allowed them to express their opinion? Moreover, you seem to completely ignore the fact that the opposing lawyer should easily be able to call the other to the stand and ask them about the display to explain themselves to the jury… or do you disagree?
If you believe any Judge in the land is going to allow a person to bring in an eight and a half by eleven sign plugging ISIS into one of their courtrooms, you’re wrong.
That is all that amounts to. She brought in a pin heralding a terrorist organization.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
You are in a round about way of backing her play, and I’m not signing on to it. Your rally around the Constitution efforts aren’t going to fly on this one.
Changing everything around like that? Ain't that what we call "moving the goalposts"?
You seem like one of those who supports the constraints of the Constitution upon government only when it's convenient to do so.
You tried. You didn’t score.
She was an idiot for trying to wear that pin in a court of law. No judge is going to back the promotion of a terrorist organization in his courtroom.
And no prosecutor would prosecute Hillary
, right?
But you're constantly avoiding the central points I raised, ignoring them for your repeated assertions and goal-moving.
It looks like a bathroom clown.
Cornered for what you were trying to do, I responded on point.
Now you’re trying to avoid it, describing me as moving the goal posts.
Ahhhhh, NO!
You brought up the issue of free speech ace.
You did so because a judge evidently stepped on the toes of someone doing something you support.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3452485/posts?page=20#20
So, you're saying you seriously cannot see that I'm talking about Justice there. (Well, injustice: overreach and pretense of authority.)
Why don't you go back and re-read that. (Here's a hint, I brought up case law to illustrate exactly that the "law" the judge is citing is really mere fickleness of the USSC rather than an actual, real law…)
Twisting in the wind isn’t a great way to win an argument.
You’ve lost. Now deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.