Althouse: You can't demonstrate here. This is the Supreme Court.

January 11, 2008

You can't demonstrate here. This is the Supreme Court.

81 people were arrested for demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court today.

33 comments:

reader_iam said...: OK, well, this is the sort of thing that does bring out the streak of libertarianism that I do, indeed, possess.; 1/11/08, 3:41 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Did any of you wear orange today? If so, what shade of orange did you wear? Did your accessories match or contrast? Did you dye your hair too?; 1/11/08, 3:43 PM
Simon said...: Well, since they're dressed for it, maybe they should serve their 60 days at Gitmo.; 1/11/08, 3:44 PM
Roger J. said...: I await Titus' take on the outfits--could it possibly be Prada making a socially relevant commentary?; 1/11/08, 3:47 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building.

Hee hee...that makes Justice Thomas the only innocent man in the building.; 1/11/08, 3:56 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Man oh man, sometimes that irony sure is ironic.; 1/11/08, 4:11 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Orange is the new black.; 1/11/08, 4:16 PM
former law student said...: I remember seeing an anti-China protest in front of the Supreme Court, but I don't think the cops came out. I remember the CNN truck backed down the street on which it's parked, filmed the protest, and eventually pulled back into its space waiting for the next event.; 1/11/08, 4:24 PM
Simon said...: By the way, I'm assuming - someone has to be the first to say it - that the title of the post is an allusion to Dr. Strangelove?; 1/11/08, 4:33 PM
Richard Fagin said...: I only wear orange on March 17.; 1/11/08, 4:34 PM
Revenant said...: I wonder what the protesters were hoping to accomplish.; 1/11/08, 4:41 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Yes, what kind of anarchist state would allow any peaceable assembly to air grievances?

Apparently not a State that says torturers “enjoyed qualified immunity for acts taken within the scope of their government jobs.”

Canada is looking better all the time.; 1/11/08, 4:54 PM
Palladian said...: "I wonder what the protesters were hoping to accomplish."

What latter-day protesters usually hope to accomplish: making asses of themselves for the sake of their self-righteous moralistic egos, another line on their "activist" resumes and, best of all, the rebellious teen-ager's second-greatest thrill (after the orgasm): STICKIN' IT TO THE MAN!

That said, what nonsense that people can't peacefully protest around the holy Supreme Temple. For what reason? They might wake Ginsberg?; 1/11/08, 4:57 PM
Palladian said...: "Canada is looking better all the time."

By all means then, get the fuck out.

I hate turds who say this.; 1/11/08, 4:58 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Mr P:

I was joking. No way I leave this country to the authoritarian creeps who hate exercise of our freedoms by people they disagree with.

Yeah, that includes you.; 1/11/08, 5:01 PM
Jeff with one 'f' said...: Good luck dealing with the speech laws in Canada.; 1/11/08, 5:09 PM
JohnAnnArbor said...: Oh, I'm sure Alpha's be happy with Canada's Human Rights Commissions, which delight in fining people for speech of all kinds.

After all, they're saying the wrong thing! How dare they?

(My fave was the guy they fined--again--for pointing out there was no free speech in Canada. Classic! I'm sure all the commissioners have at least Master's degrees in Newspeak.); 1/11/08, 5:12 PM
Palladian said...: "Yeah, that includes you."

Howso? I was supportive of the right of these people to peaceably assemble at the court. I was criticizing the content (or more accurately, the manner) of their speech. You "liberals" frequently forget that you can support free speech without supporting the content of the speech of people with whom you disagree. Indeed, free speech has to go in both directions. To support free speech necessarily requires supporting the right of people to criticize the manner and content of said free speech.

I fear people like you as much as I fear the authoritarian streak in government, and for the same reason. You'd as quickly throw "creeps like me" in a cage as any other jackbooted thug if given the chance.; 1/11/08, 5:13 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Guess I'll have to stay here then. Way to go.; 1/11/08, 5:13 PM
Crimso said...: "No way I leave this country to the authoritarian creeps who hate exercise of our freedoms by people they disagree with."

Just be happy the bros don't tase you. Oh, wait...; 1/11/08, 5:14 PM
Palladian said...: And by the manner of speech, I'm referring to the juvenile theatrics of wearing jumpsuits. It's an entirely ineffective manner of protesting and makes the message of the protest easier to dismiss. See "Puppet Head, Giant papier-mâché"; 1/11/08, 5:17 PM
Jeremy said...: Aww. We haven't seen those in a while. I kinda miss those giant puppets. They're funny!; 1/11/08, 5:51 PM
Revenant said...: I was supportive of the right of these people to peaceably assemble at the court.

Even inside it? That seems to cross the line. There are good reasons for keeping organized mobs out of the centers of government, whether we're taking the Capitol, the White House or the Supreme Court building.

Protesting outside, provided it is done in a manner which does not hinder access to the building, would be fine. But inside? I don't see how that could be considered constitutionally protected activity.; 1/11/08, 6:40 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: I kinda miss those giant puppets.

That's what we need more of puppetry, poppery, and poopery!; 1/11/08, 6:50 PM
jeff said...: Protesting at the Supreme Court means you really don't care about the Constitution. Protest at the House or Senate or White house. You should WANT the court to rule strictly on the merits, not based on how loud or how many are protesting.

Alphaliberal says "No way I leave this country to the authoritarian creeps who hate exercise of our freedoms by people they disagree with.

Yeah, that includes you."

Yet you call those who disagree with you authoritarian creeps. Ironic.; 1/11/08, 8:19 PM
hdhouse said...: "abandon all hope ye who enter here"; 1/11/08, 10:11 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: former law student said...
I remember seeing an anti-China protest in front of the Supreme Court,

People were actually protesting against China? Why? What is wrong with China? It is environmentally friendly, does not clog land fills, and is reusable. What, they want us to eat off of paper or plastic?; 1/11/08, 10:57 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: hdhouse said...
"abandon all hope ye who enter here"

Are you a memebr of the Clinton family? Did you abandon Hope?

Oh, it is a quote, sorry. I always associate Hope with Bill Clinton . An insignifigant place for insignifigant people.; 1/11/08, 11:00 PM
hdhouse said...: Middle Class Guy said...
"Oh, it is a quote, sorry. I always associate Hope with Bill Clinton . An insignifigant place for insignifigant people."

and not Huckleberry? your last sentence should read: "An insignifigant place for insignifigant people THUS WRITTEN BY AN INSIGNIFICANT MIND".; 1/12/08, 6:13 AM
hdhouse said...: Simon..front and center. Where is your version of American Supreme Court Idol in all this? I would have suspected he would issue an order forthwith or are you waiting for my here, Mr. Breyer, to do what is right.; 1/12/08, 6:15 AM
former law student said...: I always associate Hope, Arkansas with Paul W. Klipsch and his mighty Klipschorn: http://www.klipsch.com/news-center/milestones/

Anti-Billiterians would be pleased by the name of the old Klipsch newsletter, "Dope from Hope".; 1/12/08, 10:14 AM
SGT Ted said...: I wish they stuck up for the rights of ordinary Iraqis held in Saddams prisons or AQI torture houses and Afghanistinians as much as they stick up for the rights of terrorists captured on the battlefield who live in better comfort that the people who guard them.

But, maybe being fed hallal meals to the point of being overweight, air-conditioned cells and given prayer rugs and Korans unsullied by contact with Infidel hands is the new definition of "torture" now? Nevermind that they throw their urine, feces and semen on the guards. They are oppressed.

It's so hard to keep up with those ever shifting goalposts.; 1/12/08, 12:12 PM
Simon said...: Harry - all kidding aside, I basically agree with Rev's 6:40 PM comment. Protesting on the plaza I have no problem with, as long as it's not hindering anyone from getting access; protesting inside I'm not okay with. The thetrics of this particular protest are a little silly, but that's true of most protests (usually OTT and entirely ineffectual, IMO), and it's not offensively dumb.; 1/12/08, 2:17 PM