May 3, 2010

"To many members of the public, this Court’s main entrance and front steps are not only a means to, but also a metaphor for, access to the Court itself."

"This is why, even though visitors will remain able to leave via the front entrance, I find dispiriting the Court’s decision to refuse to permit the public to enter."

9 comments:

Lem said...

That's the problem with Justices like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader.. they are more interested in meaningless metaphors than in following the constitution.

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

They're probably worried about the immigration marches. Perhaps Obama's State of the Union address was the last straw.

It is now futile and foolish for anyone to hope that the press (or Obama, for that matter) will accurately report the law or S.Ct. holdings. The United Citizens decision and the AZ immigration law are but two alarming examples.

phx said...

I give credit to Breyer and Ginsburg. They've obviously thought about what it means to a citizen to feel like the courts and the government really exist for them. And how some people feel about it does make a difference.

Sarah said...

On a related note, lawyers arguing the cases before the Court and those listening to the arguments as members of the Bar already enter at a side entrance. So, perhaps, everyone is now actually equal?

Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

"To my knowledge, and I have spoken to numerous jurists and architects worldwide, no other Supreme Court in the world—including those, such as Israel’s, that face security concerns equal to or greater than ours—has closed its main entrance to the public."

There go Breyer and Ginsburg again, citing to foreign authority!

Bryan C said...

How does this help security, exactly? A gunman coul still kill a lot of people, all conveniently queued up at the side door. And a crazed bomber could destroy either entrance just as easily - if they're after headlines and symbolism the now-unused and less travelled front entrance will be an even more attractive target. Yes, the main steps and door are symbolic, but so is ineffective ecurity theater.

Bryan C said...

How does this help security, exactly? A gunman coul still kill a lot of people, all conveniently queued up at the side door. And a crazed bomber could destroy either entrance just as easily - if they're after headlines and symbolism the now-unused and less travelled front entrance will be an even more attractive target. Yes, the main steps and door are symbolic, but so is ineffective Security theater.

Superdad said...

Our tolerance for risk (rather the lack of it) is getting really annoying. I don't think the Supreme Court Building is at the top of the hit list for terrorists - foreign or domestic. I am sure there have been some threats but suck it up and play the odds. Maybe we should all wrap ourselves in bubble warp and hide in the closet.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

" ... even though visitors will remain able to leave via the front entrance, I find dispiriting the Court’s decision to refuse to permit the public to enter."

When is the Supreme Court going to take down its offensive depiction of the prophet Mohammad - which is a sin against Islam?

That is the real question.

The Supreme Court is deliberately mocking Islam and the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). The Supreme Court is deliberately hurting the feelings of millions of Muslims in America by having on its facade a depiction of the Prophet (PBUH).

I say ... Mr. Breyer: Tear down the entire offensive structure and replace it with a Sharia-compliant court that won't offend Muslims.