Do you believe that you have the right to wear a pin showing support of returning military? (According to the "Rightwing Extremism" document that's a clear flag.)
Didn't answer me. The simple answer would have been yes or no. This isn't a complex issue. It's a very simple one.
Should a terrorist sympathizer be able to wear promotional materials supporting a terrorist organization as an officer of the court in a courtroom in the United States. So far, you've revealed your opinion is yes. In your eyes the terrorist sympathizer wasn't wrong, the judge was. You are really lost in space here.
I don't need to say more than that. You've had time to say what you wanted. You're still not able to grasp why this woman shouldn't be allowed to promote terrorism in a courtroom.
None the less, you're here to straighten me or anyone else out who reconizes what you're trying to do.
You're another Jimmy Carter, a well meaning dolt that hasn't a clue.
I am NOT advocating for BLM, I am stating that it is dangerous to liberty to let authority, under color of law, violate the proper bounds of that authority.
We just had six police officers gunned down on the streets of Dallas by members of the Black Lives Matter movement. So far the best you can muster is to try to get me to buy off on what a danger it would be to non-terrorist groups to hold a terrorist group and it's supporters responsible.
I suppose holding bank robbers responsible will now be seen as a threat to FReepers. Well, we walk into banks too you know...
You could use that arguement across the board on many issues. Should BLM be able to riot in Ferguson? Using your logic, why of course. Otherwise FReepers couldn't hold peaceful protests. You logic is absurd.
> 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.
Where am I wrong?
You really don't know do you. LOL, this is just forehead smacking dumb on your part.
- The Constitution clearly establishes the Supreme Court. (Art 3)
- The judge cited a USSC case as 'law',
- claiming that there was an ability to restrict political speech.
- The First Amendment clearly prohibits the Congress from passing a law "abridging the freedom of speech".
- The Congress also puts out the JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (Title 28)
This is not a simple issue of a politcal nature. BLM shot five or six officers dead in Dallas several weeks ago. When that happened it went from a simple "iffy" advocacy group to a terrorist group.
This woman was wearing terrorist supportive materials in a court of law. You are really grasping at straws to trash this judge. I'm having none of it.
If, therefore the cited 'law' being w/i Title 28 which is enacted on the authority of Congress, whose authority is limited in that it can pass no law respecting the freedom of speech, then how is it a valid exercise of authority? — IOW, how can an authority citing another authority opining on laws which another authority has no authority to make possibly be considered good jurisprudence?
If you can't grasp this issue, you can't grasp this issue. Frankly I don't give a hoot. I'm just not going to let you spew this nonsense unopposed.
This was not a simple political activity. It was advocacy for a terrorist group. The judge was fully within his right as the top officer of the court, to hold that attorney in contempt. He asked her to remove the pin. She refused. He held her in contempt. Thank God there one judged out there that gets what you and a ton of others can't grasp. I am shocked to see that a person coming to this forum can't grasp this.
If she was on the street out front of the courthouse, fine. When she's in a courtroom, she's not in a political arena. Unless arguements before the court reasonably ask for defense of Black Lives Matter, and expression of support for that terrorist organization in the courtroom would be out of line, whether you can grasp it or not.
>> 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.
So then it would be A-OK for me to get a shave and a haircut, visit the local PX, put on a uniform, go into a military base and issue orders to the troops to secure our country's borders, right? (Art 4, Sec 4 says: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
)
This is just plain nut-job commentary. You're welcome to it... Utter nonsense...
It is because you wholly misunderstand reasoned logic.
No, I understand it.
Nope. You haven't a single clue here.
I also understand that if the Constitution can be ignored when it is an inconvenience to us [politically, legally, etc] then it is useless to us when we become the inconvenience — it must be those times when it is adhered to most strictly.
This is not a simple issue of a political nature. Killing police officers is a crime, and those who do such things en mass are terrorists. You can't grasp the difference between a simple political statement and advocacy for cop killer terrorists. You can't grasp the difference between places where it is okay to protest and get your point across, and places where it is not allowed. None the less you want to straighten me out. LOL.
> You don't seem to think the judge had the authority to do what he did. Well, he did.
He appealed to the USSC's authority, I've shown where that breaks down, so… prove it.
Show where the authority comes from.
Where does a judge's authority come from? Yikes. Clueless to the bitter end.
The judge is the top authority in his courtroom. If you can't grasp that, I'm fine with it. Just don't try to blow smoke in my face and tell me you're got the law behind you. You don't.
A judge can tell you to go home and change if he wants. He can hold you in contempt for what you wear. He can hold you in contempt for outbursts. He can hold you in contempt if he feels you are denigration the courtroom and the legal profession by advocating for a group that is clearly a terrorist organization.
I metnioned before that you reminded me of the ACLU, and their destroy by any means possible mindset. You operate in the same manner and as they do, you claim to be taking the high road. No, you are taking the low road.
You are denying the judge's right to hold this woman in contempt for having the chutzpa to advocate for a terrorist organization in his courtroom. He's not going to set there and let someone wear supportive regalia for a terrorist organization just weeks after they assassinated five or six police officers in Dallas.If a judge did what you advocating all decorum would be lost in the courtroom. It would turn into a freaking circus where folks could do or say anything they want under protection. And if that happened, the jury system couldn't handle it. The judges couldn't handle it. And legal authority would simply break down.
There has to be limits in life. You are operating at a nine year old level, just like Obama does. As adults there are things we can't do. We can't simply say, "I have rights, and do as we please."
Grow up.