Monday, October 13, 2014
The First Amendment's Limit: The Supreme Court Plaza
This article points out that the supreme court strictly enforces of the first amendment surrounding controversial issues such as abortion or gay marriage, but forbids pins or apparel sending political messages in the building. Now, protest is allowed on the sidewalks surrounding the Plaza, but not on the Plaza itself. There is discussion about the constitutionality of the attempts of the Supreme Court (the institution that enforces the constitution) to make an exception to the constitution for itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, I can see why they would think their reasoning to not allow protests on the plaza is a reasonable one, but it's not. Regardless, people on the Supreme Court are going to see messages and signs everywhere they go outside of the plaza so what's the use of just banning it on the Plaza when, like the article states, the signs on the sidewalks and outside messages they'll see in their daily life could just as easily sway their ideals? I'm honestly kind of really annoyed by this article. This is extremely hypocritical of the Supreme Court in a number of ways. This is just another way of showing the people that the government/supreme court are equally hypocritical and more invested in their interests in the smallest ways. The Supreme Court can't strongly enforce the First Amendment in every other area/aspect but their own. This isn't fair, and I personally think this is definitely a stripping of our rights. We can protest anywhere we want regardless of if it could possibly make people feel like absolute crap (ex: the protests the article mentioned at abortion clinics), but we can't protest in a place where it can possibly be more effective because we have to worry that PROFESSIONALS (who should be nonbiased anyway, regardless of anything they've seen or feel) will be influenced. No. Just, no.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with Carolanne. If the judges were doing their job correctly, then they wouldn't be susceptible to outside influence. They would know better than to make a decision based on any outside resources. Just because the material of the ground changes does in no way mean the constitutional laws change. The First Amendment is the First Amendment no matter where you go. Marble or concrete; the rights are the same. This idea is basing itself off of an ideal world where no one assumes the worst but that's reality for you. People are going to think the judges made their decisions from outside resources but that's where the trust in our judges to do their job correctly comes back in play. This is a direct strip of our rights and I will restate it, this shows how into their own interests the government is. It isn't right.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Carolanne and Katie; this is so unjust. The Supreme Court, the institution that is supposed to enforce the constitution more than any other, does not abide by the rules. That makes sense...? The First Amendment applies to all Americans, at any time, at any place; the Supreme Court can't just omit itself. The plaza is the most ideal place of protest; how could it be more tolerable to speak offensively at someone's FUNERAL? This just shows the lack of morality of these people, and how they truly put their own interests above the rest of the country's. The reasoning is also total BS, because these judges should be the most non-responsive people when it comes to persuasion by outside forces. If they could be so easily swayed in their decision-making by a sign, then they have no business being a member of the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous that the Supreme Court is limiting American's First Amendment rights. We aren't allowed to protest on the plaza of a court house but people trying to bury their loved ones or women going to abortion clinics are bombarded with hurtful words and actions. That prohibiting protesting on the plaza contradictory to the First Amendment. And the excuse that Supreme Court judges could be influenced by these protesters is a sad one. If a judge is influenced by a protester than they probably shouldn't have been appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place.
ReplyDeleteLets be realistic here. Allowing people to protest directly inside or around the supreme court would almost certaintly(whether it should or not) have an impact on how they vote. The supreme court HAS to be completely unbiased. If it means that protestors have to be blocked from the plaza then so be it.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. Given that the members of the Supreme Court probably don't spend their time in the building 24/7, I'd have to disagree that preventing protests on the plaza would stop them from being exposed to bias. It would happen anyway. Realistically, they're just as likely to be impacted by protests they see while going to and from the Supreme Court Building as they would be if the protests occurred in the plaza.
DeleteI agree with the girls above me. It's kind weird that one can be able to protest on concrete, but as soon as they step on marble, it's illegal. It's kind of sad how they are limiting the First Amendment only because the Supreme Court is afraid the judges may be influenced by the protesters. Isn't politics all about getting one's opinions and deciding if one agrees with them? Aren't they supposed to be the voice of the people and trying to do what's best for the American citizens? This shows how corrupt and selfish politicians can be. Like Carolanne said above, with social media in our society, no one can really "avoid" the signs and protests. On the other hand, I do believe that there is a certain time and place to protest. Sometimes protesters need to be considerate. Maybe this is a message from the government to be more considerate, but it still disagree that they should not have put a restriction on the Plaza.
ReplyDeleteThe reasoning that the first amendment must be suspended on the marble grounds because of the influence protesters may have seems weak to me. The justices ruling on theses cases aren't sheltered from the world and only shown the light of day when it's time to rule on a case. They're members of society who come in to contact with others with various opinions that might influence the average joe, but these are Supreme Court justices we are talking about! They should be able to block out outside influence and make a ruling based upon there perception of the constitution. I couldn't tell you what there real motives for this double standard are, but I'm sure that the one they provide isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court is generally the most trusted brands if the national government. This incident though, is a black eye for them. The first amendment is treated as though it is the most important idea ever formed at the Supreme Court. And now the fact that they are turning their backs on it is nuts. I have never seen such hypocrisy in all my life. It truly is unbelievable to me that they would do this. And the argument that they don't want judges per-swayed makes no sense to me. These are the best judges we have. They are not going to be moved because they saw a person wearing a button around the court. That is nonsense. It makes the court members seem helpless. The men and women are there for a reason and they will be just fine if the first amendment is practiced in the court
ReplyDeleteI find it ridiculous and hypocritical for the Supreme Court to fervently uphold the First Amendment and yet not allow demonstrations in the plaza in front of it. If they intend to uphold the First Amendment, they must be prepared to deal with the freedom of speech and assembly that it protects. The explanation that Supreme Court justices would be swayed by demonstrations outside of the Supreme Court Building is utter nonsense. If they are not swayed by demonstrations on the concrete sidewalk, how would having them closer to the building have any effect? They should end this ban of demonstrations in the plaza and allow people to exercise their First Amendment rights as they are entitled to.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is talking about how the Supreme Court Justices will be biased no matter what and that allowing protests on the Plaza will not have any greater affect on their decisions. I agree in this sense, but I believe that this exception to the First Amendment makes sense. Yes, it is hypocritical that the institution that uphold the Constitution is making its own exceptions to it, and it is true that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", but this exception is more about maintaining the all important allusion that the Supreme Court is not subject to outside influence. Imagine if a group was protesting outside on the Plaza and the Supreme Court voted in that group's favor. Every news station would all of a sudden be going off about how the Supreme Court is no longer making the decisions for the best of the country and upholding our Constitutional rights, but is instead attempting to please the public majority, which would make people feel uncomfortable. I understand everyone's argument here, and each point is valid. However, I believe it is important to maintain the perception among the American people that the Supreme Court is not easily swayed by outside opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the posts stating that the limitations of our first amendment rights on The Supreme Court Plaza are necessary. I get that when you say it out loud, "Taking away First Amendment Rights" sounds like an obscene act. But in this case, I believe that it is rightfully justified. True, the Supreme Court Justices are trained professionals and will not be easily swayed by public opinion, but nonstop protests and media coverage would be present if it weren't for these restrictions, which could potentially "influence" their decisions. I feel these restrictions are also present to help prevent, if it ever occurred, riots near to the Supreme Court itself. If a publicly unfavorable decision was made, and there were enough radical protesters in the crowd, they could easily get riled up and make things ugly.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Nate Reagle. While the media is writing about the hypocritical nature of this law now, if the law was reversed, future headlines would most certainly read "Biased Justices react in compliance with protestors on the front steps." Americans need to know that Supreme Court Justices will not be intimidated by protests that are occurring 15 feet from their office window. Making the protestors stay on the sidewalk, thereby keeping them a safe distance from the very building where unbiased decisions must be made, does not in any way restrict free speech.
ReplyDelete