- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of two Colorado residents who were excluded from a speech by President Bush in 2005 because White House aides saw them arrive in a car with a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No More Blood For Oil.”
Although they had earlier obtained tickets to the event, passed through a security checkpoint, and said they had no intention of being disruptive, White House officials and volunteers ordered them removed from the venue by two uniformed police officers. The officials were acting under a Bush administration policy of barring from then-President Bush’s public appearances anyone who might disagree with him.
The speech was held at a privately owned museum in Denver but was open to members of the public who obtained tickets beforehand. As an official presidential speech, it was paid for with government funds.
Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case - CSMonitor.com
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:
Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:
Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.
j-mac
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.
j-mac
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.
j-mac
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:
Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?
I figured out a new addition to our system of checks and balances: a big lever that citizens can pull. When pulled, the lever activates a devide that whacks the appropriate judge on the nose with a newspaper.
Bad Supreme Court. No. That's a BAD Supreme Court.
"No clearly established right?" What, now we need a specific constitutional amendment for every possible action? Amendment 4,153 to the US Constitution: No person shall be denied the right to wear a shirt that says "I'm a bomb disposal expert, if you see me running, try to keep up."
The Act of Certiorari should be repealed and make the Supreme Court do its job.
@TED: Dissenters should have been allowed into the town hall meeting since the president supposedly represents them as well. By denying them entrance it tells the people that disagree with the president that they do not matter to him. Although, the majority of people don't even realize that they do not matter to the politicians anyway.
As long as they behave. What we saw too often at town hall meetings was disruptive to the point of ending any real discouse or information gathering of any kind. You have to be willing to listen as well as want to speak.
However, nowhere do you have an established right to attend a political event if you are not wanted there. The venue was a private one. They were permitted to have who they wanted at the event.
It stopped being a protected political event when it was paid for by the government.
The threat posed by bumper stickers?
No it didn't. Nowhere do you have an established right to attend a government sponsored event at a private venue. If it were on the capital lawn, I could see it being an equal access thing. However, it's at a private venue. And the fact that it was government sponsored does not in any way suddenly grant you the right to attend.
\Actually, the decision is correct. You have a right to peaceful gathering for political purposes. You have a right to protected speech in the written and spoken word. You have a right to free association.
However, nowhere do you have an established right to attend a political event if you are not wanted there. The venue was a private one. They were permitted to have who they wanted at the event.
The only recourse these people should have is a refund on their ticket.
I don't agree with Bush's security decisions, but the supreme court shouldn't be hearing this case.
\
Bush was POTUS in 2005 and this event was ostensibly paid by tax payers, there was no reason why they should have been tossed.
\
Bush was POTUS in 2005 and this event was ostensibly paid by tax payers, there was no reason why they should have been tossed.
Who cares?
This is not about one side or the other being equally wrong in their efforts to silence the opposition. This is about the Supreme Court refusing to even hear about these abuses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?