Expelled From Bush Speech, Pair Now Rebuffed by Supreme Court

Source: Bloomberg

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by two people who say they were prevented from attending a speech by then-President George W. Bush after they arrived in a car bearing a “No More Blood For Oil” bumper sticker.

The nation’s highest court today left intact a lower court ruling that said Leslie Weise and Alex Young couldn’t sue White House officials and an event volunteer for expelling the pair from the 2005 speech on Social Security.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying they would have scheduled arguments in the case.

Weise and Young had tickets to the government-sponsored event, held at a private air and space museum in Denver. They say they had taken seats when they were asked to leave by Michael Casper, a Secret Service agent acting at the behest of two White House advance officials, James A. O’Keefe and Steven A. Atkiss.

Weise and Young, who were represented in the lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, say they had no plans to disrupt the speech.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-12/expelled-from-bush-speech-pair-now-rebuffed-by-supreme-court.html

Funny, how the 5 members of the court that ruled that that unlimited funds from corporations
into elections is protected as free speech but a bumper sticker has no standing.

Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Allito, and Kennedy are protecting the right from any of those messy
laws or the Constitution.

But they didn't.

Just sayin'.

sure am glad it's not a pattern with the Dems.. looking like they are working for "the people" but in the end big corporations end up winning out..

just imagine what would have happened with health care reform if the Dems didn't stand up for single-payer for us everyday in such a bold manner!

and imagine if the Dems escalated a war in Afghanistan which i'm sure a nobel prize winning leader would never do..

oh wait..

HCR at all. So, is no loaf better than half?

only time will tell with this so called "HCR" we got. I find it UNACCEPTABLE that the Dems never even talked about single-payer! Didn't even use it to bargain with. AND that they never really stood up for a public option for us. I have come to the conclusion that the Dems - at least in the senate - are far too corporate and did exactly what the corporations who bought and paid for them wanted them to do. What we got was NOT Health Care Reform - it was more like a slight health care adjustment.

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt--until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." - Gore Vidal on Bill Mahar (his quote, not mine).

The Justices that were ok'd/not filibustered by the DEMs in Congress under the Bushes are an embarrassment..
I am sooooooooo pissed that Schumer has no real opposition!!

Oh wait...

the point is Dems SHOULD - but didn't. I don't know what your problem is buddy but your little - go vote republican if you don't like it - snide shit comment doesn't change the fact that we DID get more war and did NOT get anything even CLOSE to single-payer - and it makes you sound like an ass.

GLWT (good luck with that).

DINOs and Blue Dogs = SCUM

Every one of them could last easily another twenty to thirty years.....And the way Obama picks we would just get another fairly conservative justice...Neither of the two picks he has made are very Liberal in most regards.

Kennedy is 74
Scalia is 74
Thomas is 65
Roberts is 55 but has some kind of brain or neuralgic problem
Alito is 60

Ginsburg although liberal will not be on the court much longer

If Obama gets a second term he will with out a doubt get some more picks ..... the fed court system has been packed by republicans to
protect them, the wealthy, and corporate interests

And Thomas was voted in by a Democratic Senate. Sure, the majority of Democrats opposed him, but 11 crossed the line in the end to spoil "their" party's efforts. In fact, IIRC, every member of the Bush vs. Gore quintet was either unanimously approved by the Senate or allowed by a Democratic majority.

This is a particularly significant observation because this "it's all about the Court" is often brought up as a retort against DINO grousing. "The perfect is the enemy of the good! Let the Republicans worry about party purity! We need to keep that majority, whatever it takes!" Except that we don't need a majority of Democrats. We need a majority of "democratic" votes, and it's precisely the politicians who draw the grousing who can't be counted on to vote with us.

At a certain point, purity is pragmatism. A party without a consistent position (IOW, the fabled "Big Tent") is a party without a point — if the label doesn't reliably predict a certain voting stance, what good is it at the ballot? The modern Democratic party can't even 100% agree on the apparently obvious position "the Republican Party approach is wrong".

I'm surprised the Supreme Court did not declare that automobiles are entitled to the same right of free speech as individuals under the Consitution.

The Roberts Court turns logic upside down and inside out to serve their corporate masters.

But something tells me that right will be rescinded for president palin

is that the same guy who did the ACORN stuff?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1013-court-speech-20101012,0,2098135.story

Supreme Court rejects case of woman ejected from Bush speech
She was removed from the audience because of an antiwar bumper sticker on her car. The justices, on a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling that the action by Bush aides did not violate the 1st Amendment.

Free Speech is for Corporations...

The asshole majority on the Whore Court is beyond contempt!

the crux of the case hinged upon appears to be what the 10th Circuit court (specifically Justices Kelly, Anderson and McConnell) stated:

The district court only determined that the allegations in the complaint even taken as true did not adequately address whether Defendants were entitled to assert qualified immunity, and thus ordered discovery on that question.

the 10th Circuit ruled (2-1 with McConnell dissenting) that they had no jurisdiction to rule on the appeal of the district court's interlocutory order.

(you can read the whole decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6867302680834212459&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

The Supreme Court, in a strong majority (7-2), appears to have agreed with the 10th Circuit that the 10th had no jurisdiction with only Ginsberg and Sotamayor dissenting (interesting that Kagan went along with the majority - - interesting to see if she will migrate towards the center as other justices have done in the past to the consternation of their appointing Presidents)

Thanks for the link.