Ominous precedent if Bush wins case
Of course, Bush will lose the case. But what if, by some incompetence or misguided ideological allegiance,
The crux of the argument is not that the president's free speech was interrupted by protest, but simply that the fear of someone potentially uttering a disagreement was enough to ban them from the publicly funded meeting.
What of future presidential debates? If a precedent is established that says the president's right to "control his message" trumps the rights of others to speak opposing views, what remains of democracy?
In repeatedly challenging our Constitution in courts of law, the disregard this administration shows for both the history and the future welfare of this
you are a bad drum beater as that meeting was a rally for Bush and not a town hall meeting. what about the anti Bush t-shirts? when was the last time any democrat allowed screaming opposition into their little kubaya meetings?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 06:33 AMNot all that astounding, really. "Mary" has posted a reply on the next letter that pretty much says it all.
And when one goes back to Ronnie - the "trickle down (voodoo) economics" wizard - he appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court, after some writings and speeches in which the man indicated that, for him, both as a lawyer and a potential Justice on the Nation's Highest Court, the Constitution was not at all important in making case decisions; and, that insofar as "rights" were concerned, there were NONE that the Government couldn't do away with anytime it saw fit.
He weaseled his way around, and made all sorts of excuses about "early thoughts", and the like - and managed to get Congress to approve the appointment. But do leopards really change their spots? Or Republicans respect the Constitution, when it gets in the way of their ambitions?
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 06:39 AMIs this pitiful little incident still hanging around? The only reason it is is because these 3 left wing kooks were denied their opportunity to disrupt a Presidential speech. They missed their shot at immortality and maybe actually getting arrested instead of just getting tossed out. The left LOVES to use this tactic of claiming "free speech" rights while they disrupt and take away the free speech rights of the people they are disrupting and not allowing to speak!!! The left does it all the time. Their radical element is constantly harassing and stopping people that they disagree with from getting their message out, whether it is Pres. Bush, the Minutemen, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, the Attorney General, VP Cheney, SecState Condi Rice, SecDef Rumsfeld and more. All of these people have had their "FREE SPEECH" rights curtailed or stopped completely by left wing NUTjobs foaming at the mouths and screaming all manner of obscenity laced tirades. We on the tight are sick of it and your rights do NOT trump ours. I hope that Pres Bush wins this case because you on the left appear unable to grow up and act civil when confronted with an opposing idea.
Posted by Michael on April 30, 2007 06:40 AM06:33 AM
What "anti-Bush T shirts"? There was a bumper sticker, on a parked car outside the auditorium. Is this what you refer to. It was the "reason" given for keeping these people out.
And the meeting was supposed to be open to the PUBLIC - paid for by the taxpayer.
You haven't attended many Democratic meetings in your life have you? That's obvious.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 06:46 AMTo the moron who responded to this letter first and didn't have the courage to put even their first name...you need to get your facts straight.
The meeting in Denver that these three people were evicted from, WAS a Town Hall. Of course, you probably mistook it for a Bush rally because that is what his handlers try to turn everything into because they know their puppet can't handle any hard questions that he hasn't been programmed to respond to. He's used to flying in and singing to the choir and picking up checks from folks trying to buy the favor and priviledge the GOP sells. Nothing more.
Posted by Thomas on April 30, 2007 06:49 AMMichael,
Try getting at least some of your facts straight.
No one had said a word, much less disrupted the meeting. These people were refused admission to a PUBLIC meeting, because they had a bumper sticker on their car that didn't support our "fearless Decider".
Typical Republican response: They MIGHT do something. Keep them out!
And then froth away about how others are all wrong, with never a mention of the way in which the "right" has done the same, or worse, itself.
Posted by Diogenes on April 30, 2007 06:52 AM"...never a mention of the way in which the "right" has done the same, or worse, itself." - Diogenes
I listed several people and an organization that have all been disrupted in their attempts to give a speech or in someway address an audience. They are all easily documented. Most are on vidotape - with the Minutemen speech being probably the worst of them all at Columbia University. Ann Coulter hit with a pie. AG Gonzalez disrupted this weekend at Harvard. David Horowitz constantly harangued wherever he speaks. Justice Scalia being heckled and harangued at a recent speech too. All easily referenced. Name for me ONE....just one speech by a major Democratic or liberal or left leaning politician or political leader that the right has disrupted in such a way?? I can think of none at all, but I could be wrong. If you can name one and back it up with some reference I will be glad to look it into it. Otherwise STFU.
Diogenes - I missed one, and a very important one at that. It is not a single event, but many that have been scattered all over the country in mainly left leaning college towns. It is the way the far left NUTjobs will disrupt and even not ALLOW a US Military recruting ofifce to operate or event show up on their college campus or high schools. Yes, this really tells us all about how the far left embraces the "free speech" rights of those they disagree with. San Francisco has even outlawed Jr. ROTC in their high schools. How "progressive" of them.
Posted by Michael on April 30, 2007 07:53 AMIt was a townhall meeting for Bush loyalists!
Potentail dissent should NEVER be allowed in front of the President. He can't hanlde anybody but yesmen.
Posted by Right Wing Nut on April 30, 2007 09:20 AM"Man" Coulter deserved every last bit of that pie. She invites that kind of thing with the venomous spittle that she constantly spews. I love how bomb throwers like "Man" Coulter whine when one of their bombs blows up in their face.
Posted by Beavis on April 30, 2007 10:20 AMThat pie in the face was the most Coulter had eaten in weeks.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 10:33 AMMichael-
If you will recall, John Kerry allowed anyone and everyone into his events during his run for presidency. He was constantly confronted with people carrying flip flop sandles and beating them together to disrupt his speeches, he never kicked a single person out of those meetings. The Democrats actually want discussion and dissent, it is part of their philosophy. BTW- I love how you throw everything you can into the discussion to bring left wing wacko crap into the discussion. This is an argument about access to public events, nothing else. It frightens me that the President would allow this to occur, let alone defend this position. Do we want leaders that are so isolated? From either side? I think not. We should encourage dissent and discussion at all times at all levels. Otherwise we run the risk of having leaders who are insulated from reality, th e"bunker menatality" if youwill.
I forgot to add the SFTU to Michael at the end, glad to see our freinds on the right are so polite.
Posted by Jim Hart on April 30, 2007 10:37 AMI can think of none at all, but I could be wrong. If you can name one and back it up with some reference I will be glad to look it into it. Otherwise STFU.
Posted by Michael on April 30, 2007 07:46 AM
I recall when there were anti-war protesters that there were several right wing types who would go to the rallys with posters stating such stuff as "Free Sadaam" or other things that were in no way what the anti-war protesters were saying. If there was a "Pro-war" rally it would be like going there with a poster that says "War is Good for the Economy". Lots of stooges on both sides.
Posted by Rochester on April 30, 2007 10:43 AMIt seems that we all may be a little bit off of what "event" we are talking about, and poor Sean needed to do a little more research if he thinks this will set a precedent (the precedent was set by Bush SR in 1992)
From the Denver News:
Weise and Young argue they were ejected for their political views. They had arrived in a car bearing a "No blood for oil" bumper sticker. They were also wearing T-shirts saying "Stop the lies" under their clothes but did not show them.
And:
The filing points to a ruling by another federal appeals court in a 1992 case in which an Ohio woman displaying a pro-Bill Clinton button was barred from a campaign rally for the first President Bush. The appeals court said rally organizers had a right to control their message, and the Supreme Court later refused to revive the lawsuit.
It seems as though we are having an argument without all the facts, and about something that has been decided (potentially) 15 years ago.
I am not saying that what happened was right nor wrong, but simply did a little research to become knowledgeable on the subject and wanted to provide that knowledge to the posters here.
""Man" Coulter deserved every last bit of that pie."
So Beavis, your saying it's ok to criminally assault someone if you don't like what they're saying?
Is violent behavior now part of the liberal creed?
Posted by KW on April 30, 2007 11:12 AMIs a campaign rally the same thing as a taxpayer paid event?
It is one thing to evict people after they cause trouble, but quite another thing, and probably not a legal action, to keep taxpayers from an event they partially paid for.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 11:21 AMMary, are you asking me?
Part of the problem from this "rally," taxpayer funded or not, is that the people that prevented the individuals from entering were not government employees, but private citizens.
I was merely pointing out that precedent has already been set in preventing dissent at a public forum.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 11:27 AMOops, meant Sharon B... Sorry about that. Doing three different things at the same time
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 11:28 AMMy point though, if you only think someone will act up, and it is an event open to all well behaved members of the public, then can you pretent to be secret service and physically escort people out. This is not a simple story. No one should have the right to keep people out of such an event or remove then before they cause touble.
I don`t mean to beat these points to death, but if a bumper sticker and t-shirt is enough to prevent a person from entering or staying in a publilc forum, then it is not open to the public.
It took quite awhile to discover that they were private citizens and not government employees, since it appears they made every attempt to look "official"
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 11:57 AM"Is violent behavior now part of the liberal creed?"
Naw, we'll leave that to you chimp humping lowlifes.
Posted by Republipissants on April 30, 2007 12:28 PMOh, I agree Sharon. But it is not the "administrations" fault that some chumps decided they didn't want something happening.
I find it fairly interesting that people point fingers, call names, only know "one side of the story," but don't understand the facts, or are not educated in the matter in which they opine. I mean the letter writer actually believed that the Bush Administration was arguing the facts of this case, when it is not the administration, but indeed a civil defense attorney that is making this case on behalf of his private citizen clients.
There are plenty of things to be upset or embarrassed about our Presidents (current and former) as well as our Congress. There is no need to heap additional blame on something that is not their fault.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 01:00 PMNice cop-out, Dan2.
The Bush Administration has done everything short of stand on its head and whistle Dixie to insist that it - and anyone and everyone connected to it in any way - had nothing to do with the business.
Now, we hear, "it is no the administration's fault that some chumps decided they didn't want something happening."
Who gave these "chumps" the identification they used? Who gave them the pseudo-Secret Service radio equipment - if, that is, it was "pseudo" and not genuine to begin with? To whom did they report - and get support from in their action?
Good old Nixonite "deniability", eh?
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 01:51 PMAmazing how Bush & the wingnuts are always trumpeting free speech and democracy and then they act in the same way as Castro would - muzzle people - no doubt Bush would've had them arrested & sent to Gitmo as well if he thought he could get away with it.
Bush can't even speak understandable English in front of hand-picked audiences - imagine how the clown would do if there were dissenters in the house!
Another example of these KGB methods is where Cheney had his secret service agent arrest and manhandle an older gentleman in Vail, Colorado who had the temerity to tell him: "I think your policies in Iraq are despicable!" Lawsuit is pending in that one - stay tuned. Wingnuts don't seem to understand the concept of free speech in this country.
Posted by Drew on April 30, 2007 01:55 PMOG,
I am not giving them a pass, but I don't ever "buy" into any conspiracy theories. People are insane. You know that, I know that. If some chump wants to "pretend to be important and part of the secret service" that can not be blamed on the administration, and I hope that they do indeed get sued and loose.
My point is that this administration has done enough to hang itself, we don't need to be so ignorant to pile on more crap they are not responsible for.
You must be assuming (incorrectly), that I am in support of the unconstitutional practices of this administration and congress (104th and 105th so far). I just don't get into calling names and labeling people.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 03:08 PMDan2, ty for your comments.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 04:05 PMMichael-
Nicely put. That's gonna leave a mark.
Old Grouch-6:46
It was found the three were wearing t shirts with anti-Bush slogans written on them underneath their regular clothes. Off course they claimed they decided not to show them and had no intent of causing a disturbance.
Yeah right.
This little fact was included in very few early stories and then was somehow never mentioned in all the followup stories as the "persecuted three's" trial progressed.
How convenient for the press to exclude this.
Business as usual for the MSM.
Mr. Real,
The point is, simply, they were not put out because of anything they DID. Rather, the whole action was based on what it was "thought" - to completely abuse that word - they MIGHT DO.
They had a bumper sticker on a car out in the parking lot. They wore T-shirts with slogans UNDER their clothes. For this, they were refused admission to a public forum, one paid for by the taxpayers, NOT a $100 a plate political dinner thrown by the Party.
Now you may believe that's pefectly all right; and that there is no Constitutional issue there, since the "fearless Decider" MIGHT have been . . . heckled? . . . disturbed? . . . shown to be a boob? Or what?
But this Nation does not have "lesee majestee" (no French diacritical marks on the machine) as part of its laws. At least not yet! And to forbid someone to attend a meeting on the SPECULATION that he/she MIGHT do something disruptive is WRONG; and is being contested as a violation of the Constitutional guarantees of free speech/expression, which ARE NOT just some sort of privileges Bushites may condescend to offer, if they feel generous to others.
Typical Republican idea of an "Imperial President", who can just ignore anyone but his own claque of sycophants.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 09:21 PMOld Grouch-
The point is they came to disrupt the event AND GOT CAUGHT before they could. The evidence was literally written all over them.
Boy,I wonder what they were going to do???
Or am I to believe you feel they were genuine in stating their plans were to not expose their homemade deraugatory anti-Bush attire?
That all three just happened to be discreetly wearing that day.
Posted by GET REAL on April 30, 2007 10:08 PMWow. I thought this was AMERICA.
You cannot throw someone out of a public town-hall event because of what they MIGHT say.
And even if they DID stand up and yell something anti-Bush, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO.
If the disruption was more than the President could handle (duh), then they would be removed, as they should be. History tells us that in these cases, protesters usually allow themselves to be removed without resistance.
The action of denying them entrance was purely political and indefensible.
Posted by Tom on May 1, 2007 06:24 AMLet's face it, Get Real has a point. If a person looks like he might cause problems, he should be arrested. After all, it's the Nazi way.
Posted by Truth on May 1, 2007 06:37 AMMister Real's position is based on the premise that, if someone knows (or thinks he knows, or even pretends he knows) what another person intends to do, then preventing the outcome is not only right and proper, but also absolutely necessary.
There are disciplines of thought and practice in which this position is called, "Paranoia".
Posted by Diogenes on May 1, 2007 06:56 AMIs there no one who oversees this site for foul language? Our "family values," wingnut friends seem to have a problem with civility - like the anonymous idiot above.
Posted by Drew on May 1, 2007 09:11 AMDamn right they should kick the idiots out.They should kick these morons out of the country because they are too stupid to be Americans.
Posted by Keith on May 1, 2007 10:06 AMDamn right they should kick the idiots out.They should kick these morons out of the country because they are too stupid to be Americans.
Posted by Keith on May 1, 2007 10:06 AMIf Bush or his minions win this, we all have lost the right to attend publilc forums, even if we wear a "stop the lies" tee shirt and have wierd bumper stickers.
Someone watched these people drive in and followed them to the door, while alertilng others of their presence. They asumed "stop the lies" was meant for Bush. I see them scurrying around like the three blilnd mice. All that acting official and so secret service like.
Then they got caught! Found out!
Now their pitiful explaination is exposed for all to see. Great.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 10:10 AMSharon,
I'm wondering why Bush is mentioned in this, other than that it was he that was speaking? These were private citizens that stopped other private citizens from attending a taxpayer funded speech on Social Security and those citizens have been sued, and I hope the two that brought the suit win.
But don't blame this on the administration. It had nothing to do with it. The defense lawyer for these men is the one that is comparing this to what happened to a private function in 1992. President Bush, nor his detail nor anyone in his administration had anything to do with this at all. That is the fact of this case, and it is not refuted, other than in the minds of those whose disdain (maybe rightly) is so strong for this President that it blinds them to the truth.
Posted by Dan2 on May 1, 2007 11:29 AMYou are right that Bush may never have known what was going on. I think his staff probably did this on a regular basis, because it looks like they had it down pat. I have seen broadcasts where Bush answered hecklers and they are right to protect him. He does get flustered.
I said Bush or his minions. could be either
Good posting from you as usual.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 11:44 AM"Too stupid to be Americans?" I wonder if Keith has looked in the mirror? That's one raging IQ there! Wonder who'd win a debate between Keith & Bush?
Posted by Drew on May 1, 2007 04:02 PMdrew,you make my point,lossssssssssser.
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 12:55 AMWhat if these people actually had heckled the president at a public meeting? Is that illegal? I was under the impression this is an American right.
Posted by mytwosense on May 2, 2007 08:33 AMmytwosense,
It is, of course, an American right. Look back through history at the days when debates between - or among - candidates were not on radio, or TV, or otherwise insulated from attendance by the general public. Heckling was an art in those days; and one that kept the politicians at least somewhat close to the idea that they REPRESENTED the people, not RULED OVER them.
Starting pretty much with the Nixon era, however, the idea that the President, and/or those in the majority in Congress, and/or both are somehow "above the people", has brought us to the place at which there are those who actually believe that, "Dissent is treason" (or worse), as exemplified so well by the McCarthy bunch, and constantly appearing from time to time here on this forum.
And these will go to any lengths whatsoever to promote their position, and to keep the current "sacred cow(s)" away from any form of criticism, real or imagined.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 09:57 AM