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.
The first sentence is correct: I believe he overstepped his authority. (Certainly what he cited is incorrect.)
I do not agree that he oeverstopped his authority. That is idiotic. Can he or can't he stop a person from advocating for a terrorist group within his courtroom? Yes! End of that discussion.
While you may be correct about his citation, that is mute in that he certainly has that authority even if not covered by the citation (excuse) he used.
Here you are once again advocating for the person to be able to wear the BLM object in the courtroom. That is indefensible.
Of course you'll deny this and state that all you were really addressing was... "Blah blah blah blah blah...", but it all boils down to the same thing. You don't seem to think the judge had the autority to do what he did. Well, he did.
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.)Honestly, this gets to the point that it is absurdity on parade. It is reasoned for a judge to object to a person wearing something (inside his courtoom) that recognizes and heralds and shows support for a group that is assassinating police officers.
Congress? Really? Good grief.
I don't honestly care what reason this judge used. You do because you think the letter of the law is of prime importance. And in that you and the American Civil Liberties Union are in complete agreement. Anytime something comes up they don't like, they find a legal angle to object to justice or destroy our way of life. Here you are doing the same thing. This person's disrespect for the law and the courts was over the top, and the judge addressed it. Now you're acting as if he was the one who openly disrespected the court.
Now, perhaps he does need to used a better citation, but I am not going to deny his ruling based on that. The important issue here is not his citation. The important issue, is whether he had a right to do what he did or not. He did. He should be pointed to the proper citation and his ruling should stand.
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.
LOL, uh, NO!
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.
And so you are convinced that justice was not served by this judge. And in all honesty, you are proving why most folks don't trust attornies any farther than they can drop kick them.
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.
I don't disagree on this point, but it is not a good argument for trashing what this judge did.
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.
An appeal to authority that doesn't exist? Once again you are back to saying the judge was acting improperly by taking action aginst the offending attorney. Wrong!
I have stated that you may be correct with regard to the citation, but you are also tossing out justice with the bath water. "Who is this judge to object to what this woman wants to do?"
Balderdash!.
(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?
It is because you wholly misunderstand reasoned logic. And in this you destroy what you seek to protect. You get all weak in the knees because this judge might have used the wrong citation, but could care less if a court is subject to becoming a place where terrorist organizations are heralded and promoted. The judge did the right thing, but you don't like that he couldn't justify it. The woman did the wrong thing, but you could care less about that. The destruction of the sanctity of the court is just fine with you as long as some judge can't stop what needs to be stopped. Should the court be a place where officers of the court promote Black Lives Matter, ISIS operations in the United States, criminal activity by our elected officials and the courts? Well sure, as long as some judge doesn't get to do something you view as abuse in his courtroom. Wow, the ACLU is strong with this one.
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".)
Snooze alert... Please provide evidence of terrorist activity by a mainstream Right Wing group. Thanks in advance. What we do have taking place in real time is assassinations of police officers by members of the Black Lives Matter group.
You are aware of this right?
Again, it's not about BLM, it's about the implicit lies, namely: it's law because the Supreme Court said so
.
You poor thing. In this instance it most definitely was about advocacy for, reconition of, and approval of Black Lives Matter.
(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.)
And a groundwell of sweat is going to sweep the nation and drown all our rights if a judge stops a terrorist advocate from advocating for that orgazation in his courtroom. Balderdash!
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.
Aww, you poor thing. The judge did something you don't like. He was right to do it. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Use the terms SCOTUS and Congress a few more times for good measure.
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.
Now you're using Jesus. There is no depths to the depravity of your misguided logic.Terrorists and their advocates have no right to openly advocate for their tactics in our courtrooms.
Do you believe that woman had the right to wear the pin showing support for Black Lives Matter in the courtroom?