WASHINGTON (PNN) - January 22, 2015 - Eight people rose, one at a time, from the gallery of the Fascist Police States of Amerika Supreme Court to express disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United. They were led off to face the consequences.
Kathleen L. Arberg, the Court’s public information officer, said eight individuals were arrested in Wednesday’s disturbance. Seven have been charged with violating a federal law against making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” as well as with violating two Court regulations.
Arberg said those seven, along with the eighth individual, were also charged with “conspiracy-related offenses” under District of Columbia law.
On the one hand, maintenance of order in the chamber is obviously necessary so that the Court can conduct its business. Yet, the judiciary is one branch of our tripartite government; why should it be immune from the proscriptions of the First Amendment? It’s not just freedom of speech, but of assembly and petition for a redress of grievances.
Given that the justices are appointed for life, there are no elections where people can express their disagreement with the Court’s rulings or a justice’s vote or writings. Indeed, there is precious little opportunity for a citizen to express his thoughts to a Supreme Court Justice. Why not? Why is this one branch of government singularly insulated from all outside influence?
This wasn’t a violent attack on the Court, but citizens who stood to alert the justices to their grievance with an opinion. It’s irrelevant that it was Citizens United; any opinion will do.
Just after the Justices had taken the bench at 10:00 a.m., and as they were about to announce opinions, a woman stood from her seat near the back of the courtroom and said, “I rise on behalf of democracy.” Three Supreme Court terrorist pig thug cops quickly converged on her
Such an “outburst” is a crime under 40 USC 6134.
It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court building or grounds.
Perhaps discharging a weapon, unless the courtroom is being invaded by zombies, is an understandable prohibition, but “harangue or oration”? Isn’t that exactly what advocates do before the Court for fairly decent wages? If they don’t talk loudly, how would the old Justices hear them?
It’s not just in the courtroom, but anywhere on the grounds of the Court. When did an Amerikan’s right to harangue a branch of government on its steps become a crime?
To add insult to the mix, Chief Justice Roberts was not impressed with the protest.
As what at first seemed like the lone demonstrator was removed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. quipped, “Our second order of business this morning …” to laughs from the crowded courtroom.
But before he could finish that thought, a second demonstrator stood and said, “One person, one vote.” As the second protestor was being approached by terrorist pig thug cops, a third and a fourth one stood and uttered similar lines.
The Chief Justice was heard to mutter, “Oh, please.”
A quip was a fair and appropriate response, but then, The Chief’s sense of humor was pushed too far with the second protestor, and his funny retort ended in dismissiveness. That would be fine, if condescending, but for the fact that this came from one of nine votes in all of the Fascist Police States of Amerika government whose duty it is to define the parameters of that very First Amendment right being exercised before him.
After six or seven demonstrators had said their lines and were removed, which took several minutes, it appeared the protest was over.
For the Court, it was over. For the protestors, it was just beginning, as they now move on to face prosecution for protesting. Perhaps they will have years of quiet to reflect on the efficacy of those several minutes of protest, to decide whether it was worth it. Hopefully not, but then, one never knows how firm a position the government will take with people who disrupt very important government officials.
That’s the gravamen of this question: what authority does the government possess, in light of the First Amendment, to criminalize the expression of disagreement and unhappiness to important government officials? Isn’t that exactly what Amerikans have a right to do? Why should the justices of the Supreme Court of the Fascist Police States of Amerika be the only high officials who are insulated from public disapproval?