Supreme Court Bans Protests On Its Grounds

[marmar]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has come up with a new regulation banning demonstrations on its grounds.

The rule approved Thursday comes two days after a broader anti-demonstration law was declared unconstitutional.

The new rule bans activities such as picketing, speech-making, marching or vigils. It says "casual use" by visitors or tourists is not banned. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-bans-protests_n_3437075.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

[Agschmid]

1. Oye.

[graham4anything]

2. Send your cards and letters to Ralph Nader saying Thanks for 2000 Ralph. nt

[avaistheone1]

12. Wrong.

Your mail should be addressed to Katherine Harris who purged almost 200,000 voter records, as well as to the Supreme Court.

Oh by the way there is no excuse for ignorance This is not a joke: Gore won.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181.

[graham4anything]

15. NH 4 electoral votes, Gore won at 9pm eastern no recount needed 270 electoral votes. NH NH NH

[avaistheone1]

16. Yes, Gore won.

[hobbit709]

19. And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hops.

your whatif scenario is like those books on the South or Hitler winning.

[progressoid]

21. There it is again...Ralph Nader.

I'll save you the time and also mention Ron Paul too.

[graham4anything]

22. I won't apologize for NOT supporting the man who threw the 2000 election long before 12/12/2000.

And he lied

Can you say Gore would have picked Alito and Roberts?
If so, one believes Ralph Nader.
If not, one doesn't

Alito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas are directly responsible for 100% of every bad ruling (and Scalia/Thomas picked because Jimmy Carter did not win, is directly responsible for 2000.

Do you think Jimmy Carter would have picked any of the 4?

How in the world could Nader say both parties are the same?

[canoeist52]

3. Unconstitutional? At the Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution?

[ananda]

4. I know. Surreal isn't it?

*%#*

[KurtNYC]

6. They're going to put "The Onion" out of business !

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. Irony is indeed dead.

[avaistheone1]

13. The world is flummoxed.

Oh how we have fallen.

[ljm2002]

5. Good grief, this is really getting surreal...

..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I guess the Supremes figure hey, we're not Congress, so it's all good.

[FarCenter]

23. You can assemble; just not there. If you have a petition, use USPS.

[JaneyVee]

7. Nothing says "get ready for a bunch of shitty decisions coming soon" like banning protestors.

[justiceischeap]

8. And since quite a few of those have to do with marriage equality

and the last big protest/vigil at the Supreme Court was for marriage equality... I think I'm seeing a clue.

[Barack_America]

9. Did they scribble the decree on the Constitution itself?

Or why not keep things in the spirit of Citizens United and charge a fee to protest.

[L0oniX]

10. Undemocratic and unconstitutional.

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.- Abbie Hoffman

[leftynyc]

14. Sounds like they're getting ready

for some unpopular decisions.

[William769]

18. I can think of two due out shortly.

If those two don't go the way they should I'll be the first in line to say screw that regulation and if you don't like it lock my ass up!

[William769]

17. Sounds like some civil disobedience is on the way.

[me b zola]

20. Sounds like the next place to occupy

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. It's like when they say that you need a permit from the government to protest the government...

I don't think these people had a permit: