I believe it is accurate to state that you believe this judge was out of line, so you trashed him for it. Your basis for that position is that the SCOTUS has ruled a judge doesn’t have the right to stop free speech in a courtroom. At least I believe that’s the angle you’re coming from.
Let me ask you this. When or if the SCOTUS rules that we don’t have the right to bear arms, and therefore can’t own them any longer, are you going to hop on threads trashing folks for objecting, or ignoring the law?
Will you trash judges that refuse to side with the SCOTUS?
Evidently you think that open support for BLM in a courtroom is so important, that you will trash judges or anyone else who objects to this terrorist group being heralded and honored by an officer of the court.
I could not disagree with you more on this matter.
If a person was wearing a Free Republic pin, it would not be heralding a terrorist group. There is a difference, and you don’t seem to be able to grasp what is actually taking place here.
This judge has his head glued on squarely IMO, and I think it is very unfortunate for someone to come here and trash him for doing the right thing.
The first sentence is correct: I believe he overstepped his authority. (Certainly what he cited is incorrect.)
The second is very incorrect: my position is that the courts, even the supreme court, sees itself to be free of the constraints of the Constitution. (The cited case law is precisely the USSC saying that the unconstrained prohibition of the first amendment on congress is, in fact, dependent on circumstances.)
Let me ask you this. When or if the SCOTUS rules that we don’t have the right to bear arms, and therefore can’t own them any longer, are you going to hop on threads trashing folks for objecting, or ignoring the law?
You've got it backwards, very backwards.
I believe the judiciary to be the most lawless of the branches, wrapping their pronouncements in the color of the law but not actually having the real basis therein.
A good example would be divorce courts, purely civil cases, wherein the value in controversy is greater than twenty dollars. The seventh amendment guarantees the right to jury trials in cases where the contested value is greater than twenty dollars, yet the divorce courts deny that right and operate w/o juries.
Will you trash judges that refuse to side with the SCOTUS?
I trash the SCOTUS fairly regularly — their rulings often show a high disregard for the Constitution.
Evidently you think that open support for BLM in a courtroom is so important, that you will trash judges or anyone else who objects to this terrorist group being heralded and honored by an officer of the court.
No, it's not about BLM. It's about this twisted appeal to authority that doesn't exist that judges throw around.
(Though, as I noted before, the mindset is wholly apparent in their using contempt of court
to really mean contempt of the contemptible, unjust judges who use/call that appeal to authority "law".)
I could not disagree with you more on this matter.
Is that because you wholly misunderstand my point?
If a person was wearing a Free Republic pin, it would not be heralding a terrorist group. There is a difference, and you don’t seem to be able to grasp what is actually taking place here.
These are the same courts that would likely regard an anti-abortion pin as a mark of belonging to a terrorist group. (There was a government report a while back about Rightwing Extremism
which listed things like pro-life, returning military, and "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority".)
Again, it's not about BLM, it's about the implicit lies, namely: it's law because the Supreme Court said so
.
(The underlying principle is actually a rejection of the authority of the Constitution: for if the law is whatever the supreme court says it is, then not all legislative power is in the Congress [see Art 1, Sec 1 of the Constitution] and the USSC is actually a sort of super legislature… one unbound by the constraints of the Constitution.)
This judge has his head glued on squarely IMO, and I think it is very unfortunate for someone to come here and trash him for doing the right thing.
He may have his head on squarely, but the real question is if it's full of things that just ain't true.
Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger than the one who sends him. The current mentality of law school is founded upon the contrary notion: that those commissioned by an authority are indeed greater than that which commissions them. To wit, that the Constitution means what the supreme court says it does, thereby elevating that court above the very authority from which it is commissioned.