A new Patriot Act provision makes protesting outside of the barrier zones a felony. Do you guys really think that is a good idea?
I think a good rule of thumb is this:
If it was “President Hillary Clinton” enacting these laws, would you still support it?
“Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas at such events previously would be arrested and charged by local law enforcement with simple trespassing, said Graves. Under the provision included in the new law, they will be charged with felonies by the Secret Service.”
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
And, to reiterate, the plaintiffs lost this case, and the USSC declined to review – I’m guessing that it’s not quite as bad as the one-sided presentation of the facts from this website makes it out.
nephorm wrote:
I spoke to a friend this weekend who specializes in constitutional law… her take is that the Supreme Court tends to shy away from any cases involving the restriction of executive power, if for no other reason than because they have no way of enforcing their ruling. She also admitted that she is not acquainted with this particular case.
I don’t buy the argument that the USSC ignores executive power issues, but I also don’t know enough about the selection process for cases. Is only one Justice’s (or his/her staffer’s) approval necessary to bring a case before the court? [/quote]
It’s true that the USSC will tend to shy away from taking hotly contested issues concerning executive power, but this case would seem to fall more under 1st Amendment or individual rights, which wouldn’t fit well with most of the other such cases that the USSC avoids as “political questions.”
I’m trying to recall the procedure under which the USSC decides to hear cases – I believe they vote on it, but I don’t recall if it takes a majority to decide to hear a case on appeal. I’ll ask my friend who clerked for the DC Circuit when I see him next.