Black attorney white Judge. I wonder how this is going to end up?
Should have kept her confined through the appeal process then make her serve the 5 days. But it’s one law for us and another for our masters.
This group should not exist or whites should have their own.
90 days picking up highway trash in a jumpsuit plus disbarment
In fairness, I wonder how far this extends? Can a police officer wear a mourning band, or if in plain clothes, a National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund thin blue line pin? If it involved a foreign national, would anything that depicts an American flag have to be covered up or otherwise disallowed?
What about spectators? Do they have wear attire that is completely lacking in logo so as not to be construed as attempting to sway the jury?
I know from experience that lawyers have complained that there were too many officers present at a trial against a cop killer. The judge just made sure there was a balance of family for the killer and the family/blue family of the deceased.
To be clear, I still believe the BLM is a militant separatist group with a terrorist streak a mile wide.
She wants to wear a pin in court about a big fat like just to keep the big fat lie going.
I wish he’d give her 5 years.
But the law doesn’t apply to specially-privileged individuals.
I remember a lawyer showing up for court without socks, wearing Topsiders. The judge sent him home to put on socks.
The lawyer supports Black Leftists Murder!
it may violate Burtons civil rights...,..Doesn’t everything if you are Democrat/Marxist/Socialist?
Which law? Why don't judges cite the law?
(Or, I suppose that the journalists could just not be reporting or asking those questions.)
The judge said his ruling is based on Supreme Court case law in which a judge can prohibit symbolic political expression in courtrooms, even if its not disruptive.
Ah, so not actually a law.
And, apparently, it also implies that political speech is exempted from the prohibition on laws constraining speech — well, I guess that's been explicitly said by the supreme court before. (Link:We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.
[…] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
)