Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Secret video of Supreme Court Justices going WILD posted on Youtube   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, supreme court justices, Supreme Court, YouTube, sketch artists, campaign finance reform, oral arguments  
•       •       •

2769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2014 at 7:13 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-27 07:24:47 PM  
2 votes:

bdub77: Police officers removed Newkirk after a brief scuffle. He was charged with violating a law that prohibits "loud threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court building.

Also, I would love to see this guy fight the case and take it to the Supreme Court.


We can only hope it goes something like this.
2014-02-28 05:01:06 AM  
1 vote:

sprgrss: 3) Citizen's United was correctly decided. Instead of trying to cap outside advertising during elections, fight for disclosure laws


No, it wasn't. The idea that money is speech is a fallacy. Money enables speech, and there is a major difference. Citizen's United also holds that money spent on an election by an outside group does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Which is so amazingly laughable that we would give a 4th grader an F for any paper that contained that assertion.

It destroyed precedent, it tramples over the prerogatives of Congress- it's a steaming pile of shait. Read Justice Steven's dissent for a fuller accounting of just how awful that thing was.
2014-02-27 08:41:21 PM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: Newkirk was charged with violating federal law that makes it a crime to "harangue" or utter "loud threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court building.

How has Scalia avoided ending up in the clink all these years?


Given that Scalia is a Republican and therefore a closeted gay who's probably tapped his foot a few times in airport restrooms, and given that this guy:

i.imgur.com

is a Nazi, I also find it difficult that one of them did not find themselves in the other at some awkward point.

(It appears that the colonel is wondering the same thing.)
2014-02-27 08:38:44 PM  
1 vote:

Witty_Retort: The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week.  The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.


Scalia manually scribes them onto a wax cylinder with a metal stylus.
2014-02-27 07:38:46 PM  
1 vote:

nmrsnr: I never understood the "no recordings" bit.


Scalia doesn't show up in mirrors or on video.
2014-02-27 07:36:10 PM  
1 vote:
1)  these antics aren't hurting

2)  People who use corporation as a pejorative don't understand what a corporation is

3)  Citizen's United was correctly decided.  Instead of trying to cap outside advertising during elections, fight for disclosure laws.
2014-02-27 07:32:59 PM  
1 vote:
Four CNN links in a row?

Who the hell is running this place nowadays?
2014-02-27 07:17:17 PM  
1 vote:
Police officers removed Newkirk after a brief scuffle. He was charged with violating a law that prohibits "loud threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court building.

Also, I would love to see this guy fight the case and take it to the Supreme Court.
2014-02-27 07:14:39 PM  
1 vote:

nmrsnr: Satanic_Hamster: Concerns about lawyers or even judges grandstanding for the cameras/6'o'clock news.

But it's transcribed. And don't they have time limits, and can't the Justices shut them up by interrupting?


He did say judges too - who's going to shut up another Justice? I'd be more worried about the latter. Like Scalia just being a f*cking wanker for 3 hours straight.

I don't buy that this was the first outburst in years though, especially if the judges had zero reaction to it, which implies it happens more often than the court source is letting on.
2014-02-27 06:58:18 PM  
1 vote:

nmrsnr: I never understood the "no recordings" bit. I get not having distractions in the gallery, but not allowing C-SPAN or something from recording something that is a public hearing that is fully transcribed seems just odd.


Concerns about lawyers or even judges grandstanding for the cameras/6'o'clock news.
2014-02-27 06:47:04 PM  
1 vote:
I never understood the "no recordings" bit. I get not having distractions in the gallery, but not allowing C-SPAN or something from recording something that is a public hearing that is fully transcribed seems just odd.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report