That was extremely professional and courteous. Imagine that in any other country.

NewportBarGuy: That was extremely professional and courteous. Imagine that in any other country.

Exactly.

The Youtube comments are hilarious. So much uneducated outrage.

And it wouldn't be complete without

That is a violation of his free speech.
photochico 4 hours ago

Anyone who makes a big deal out of this is, well, under-educated. And this is something one should have learned in eighth grade.

The reply I got in the comments is facepalmy.

"Laws" are not necessarily constitutional. Unconstitutional "laws" can and should be broken until they are changed, in fact that is the mechanism by which they are changed: pending cases give more intelligent courts a chance to rule correctly. Violations of the constitution do not equal legal precedent. Support the constitution, not bullsh%t laws. Anyway, why arrest over this? Why not answer questions? The cop said it all when he said "I am the authority." Power trip.

RoyBatty: NewportBarGuy: That was extremely professional and courteous. Imagine that in any other country.

Imagine that a few blocks away....

Imagine it in the new United States of Amerika (can't say you weren't warned when Obama was elected).

Now that he has the authority to detain you indefinitely, I guess the government will be able to fill those FEMA camps after all.

/wonders why democrats aren't screaming for his impeachment over what he did on New Years Eve

EnviroDude: RoyBatty: NewportBarGuy: That was extremely professional and courteous. Imagine that in any other country.

Imagine that a few blocks away....

Imagine it in the new United States of Amerika (can't say you weren't warned when Obama was elected).

Now that he has the authority to detain you indefinitely, I guess the government will be able to fill those FEMA camps after all.

/wonders why democrats aren't screaming for his impeachment over what he did on New Years Eve

So what did he do that constituted a high crime or misdemeanor?

That guy was a complete tool. Those cops were polite to the end, and that sad look of resignation on the cop's face when he realized the guy wasn't going to return the courtesy was depressing. They don't pay those guys enough.

EnviroDude: Now that he has the authority to detain you indefinitely, I guess the government will be able to fill those FEMA camps after all

It's our own fault for sitting idly by while he rammed the Patriot Act through Congress.

unlikely: Those cops were polite to the end

Which is a notable exception to the rule. We found the 1%.

The fact that wearing an article of clothing with one word on it constitutes as engaging in a "demonstration" is very sad and troubling to me.

lerxst2112: The fact that wearing an article of clothing with one word on it constitutes as engaging in a "demonstration" is very sad and troubling to me.

I agree.

unlikely: That guy was a complete tool. Those cops were polite to the end, and that sad look of resignation on the cop's face when he realized the guy wasn't going to return the courtesy was depressing. They don't pay those guys enough.

By the strictest reading of the law, the police, by openly displaying their badges, are in violation of this law. ..."It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement. " Link (new window)

According to the law... no one could wear ANY branded clothing into the Supreme Court Building. That includes sports teams, corporations and any other "organization". No exceptions are made for military or law enforcement personal; I would wonder how many people tour that building every day and are allowed to ignore that stipulation? There is NOTHING to this effect listed on the Supreme Court website, Link (new window)

The Police are most assuredly an "organization" and yet they are allowed to dress in their uniforms at will. Why not require them to wear plain-clothes like the Secret Service? Their badge is a device meant to bring to public notice who and what they are, along with the authority they have. That, by its very definition, violates the law they were using to arrest this man on. Again, they could choose to use more discretion to avoid such an appearance of hypocrisy.

It seems to me that this language is specifically left vague so as not to be seen as infringing on the 1st amendment, however by the very manner in which it is enforced, it is, in fact, in violation of the law. Police presence is an overt display of power by the government, and therefor it is a political statement. Whenever the government exerts it's authority, it is a political action. In this instance, I feel they are reserving for themselves the privilege to choose what is acceptable to wear not based on an objective set of standards that they also hold themselves to as well, but based on that which they feel is acceptable. That is why it seems hypocritical to me. I am sure lots of folks don't feel as those a uniformed, armed law enforcement agent ISN'T a political statement, but therein we will disagree.

tenpoundsofcheese: Dughan: unlikely: That guy was a complete tool. Those cops were polite to the end, and that sad look of resignation on the cop's face when he realized the guy wasn't going to return the courtesy was depressing. They don't pay those guys enough.

By the strictest reading of the law, the police, by openly displaying their badges, are in violation of this law.

not after 1967, try again

You gonna back that up with a link? Not that I don't believe such a law exists... nor do I agree with such a law, for that matter.... but I would like to see the specifics of such a ruling so I can know exactly what to dislike about it. :P

LordJiro: Is Phil...er, EnviroDude one of the people who thinks the NDAA changed anything?

/Hint: Everything in the rider was already allowed by the AUMF.
//Further hint: Even if it wasn't, there was fark all Obama could do against a veto-proof majority.

Yes there is. He could have vetoed it.

Jz4p: There was a unified effort on Friday to Occupy courtrooms in protest of the Supreme Court decision two years ago

Actually know a federal district court judge. He was saying that they had been asked to clear their dockets in anticipation.

theknuckler_33: What is sad and troubling is that you try to portray what he did as 'wearing an article of clothing with one word on it' as if it weren't a blatantly obvious politically motivated act of demonstration... demonstration which is forbidden inside the supreme court for obvious reasons.

Yes, the Supreme Court must draw the line as to what constitutes "bring[ing] into public notice a party, organization, or movement" and not allow any exceptions!





You know, except for Christians. Obviously.