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 ...
We fought a war to be rid of kings.
The idea that judges are kings is repugnant to justice as it can easily imply that they are exempt/above the law.
Uh, you went from disparaging case law to citing case law in the same comment. And the case law you cite has no bearing, here.
That attorney's name wouldn't happen to be Vincent Gambini, would it? LOL
No, it was not Vince! Another sockless mook/
Who is in charge of a courtroom if not the judge?
The judge is the ultimate authority in his courtroom. That is as it should be.
In this instance to argue otherwise is to support the legitimization and promotion of a Black terrorist group in a court of law.
Ah, no thanks.
Was she wearing the matching socks?
I searched very briefly and found this: "The Supreme Court let stand a decision that judges can prohibit symbolic political expression in courtrooms, even if it's not disruptive." So the court upheld a judge's discretion but still don't know if its against the law per se.
Did you fail to read the cited case law?
I think it's pretty good evidence supporting my disdain for case law.
two yutes!
Holy...
No, I didn’t read it in its entirety, because it was pretty good evidence that you do not know how to apply case law.
Just because they're in charge does not mean that their authority is unlimited.
The judge is the ultimate authority in his courtroom. That is as it should be.
See the above.
In this instance to argue otherwise is to support the legitimization and promotion of a Black terrorist group in a court of law.
No, in this instance I'm saying the judge is a liar: there is no such "law" and that any such law, if it existed, would be null and void under the the first amendment. (He cites the Supreme Court, which is a federal court and whose authority is limited [like all other branches] by the Constitution which flatly prohibits the congress from making such a law; by citing the USSC he is implicitly asserting that it is a federal issue which it may not be. [See Amd 10 and 11.])
It essentially says that the prohibition upon congress of the first amendment is abrogatable based on the needs/interests [of government] and circumstances.
That thing needs a night in the box. Get its mind right.
So what? A judge has the authority to prohibit anything that he or she feels is prejudicial to either of the two parties there.
Yeah!The first one being the ugly group.
Agree, but refuse a judge’s order in their courtroom and there’s no recourse except go to jail.
:-)
.
So, my argument is that a judge's authority is neither absolute, nor all encompassing.
The judge is not even the real judge of the case, the Jurors are, it is they who decide guilt and innocence — in American jurisprudence the judge is, at best, a referee, he is absolutely not supposed to be a black robed god-king.
True, but then should it not be a matter of public record the offenses for which a judge finds contempt?
Also, it seems to me that there is a big [and important] difference between the judge and "the court" — since they're orthogonal it seems to me possible that a contempt of the judge is not a contempt of the court. (Though, judges seem to have grown big egos and sometimes seem incapable of even contemplating that they are not "the court".)
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.