3 ms·

The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing

by glimcat 14y ago

The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. 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. There are some genuinely stupid acts of government out there like free speech zones and all the security theatre, or attacking photographers. This is not one of them. Want something to get mad at the government about today? Congress is currently playing an $85 billion dollar game of chicken. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-just-dumb-obama-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-j...

FreezerburnV 14y ago
And yet, the president originally supported the sequestration cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kj1y3q92sog https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... And Republicans were willing to give the administration more flexibility in how the cuts were made: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-congress-to-find-compromise-on-cuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-co... Make of that what you will.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
>The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. Okay, now I get it. It sounds like they may be applying it wrongly here, unless they were deciding a case involving or related to the occupy movement.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Read the law again, it doesn't depend on whatever case is being debated, it's generic in scope. Any political banner, display, etc. is excluded, not just ones pertaining to a case being argued.

by glimcat 14y ago

FreezerburnV 14y ago

And yet, the president originally supported the sequestration cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kj1y3q92sog https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... And Republicans were willing to give the administration more flexibility in how the cuts were made: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-congress-to-find-compromise-on-cuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-co... Make of that what you will.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

>The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. Okay, now I get it. It sounds like they may be applying it wrongly here, unless they were deciding a case involving or related to the occupy movement.

mpyne 14y ago
Read the law again, it doesn't depend on whatever case is being debated, it's generic in scope. Any political banner, display, etc. is excluded, not just ones pertaining to a case being argued.