Supreme Court Rules Against Protestors

U.S. Supreme CourtJACKSONVILLE, Ore. — The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled unanimously against a group of protestors at the center of a court case stemming from President George W. Bush’s visit to Jacksonville in 2004.

The protestors said the Secret Service tried to remove anti-Bush protestors, thus violating their First Amendment right. That’s because while both pro- and anti- Bush demonstrators were gathered on California street, when the president unexpectedly decided to eat on Jacksonville Inn’s patio, it put the protestors within “weapons range” of the president.  So the Secret Service pushed the protestors back several blocks, but left the supporters in place.  There was a brick building in between them and the president.   After the President dined, his motorcade passed supporters, but the protestors, now two blocks away from the motorcade’s route, were beyond his sight and hearing.

The Supreme Court decision published today states that the Secret Service’s top priority is protecting the president, not ensuring the First Amendment is enforced.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court says the claims of the protestors are undermined by a map of the area, which supports the Secret Service claims of security concerns.

Read the Supreme Court Decision here.


No ping yet

  1. Butch Merusi says:

    I agree completely! Too bad the “protestors” wasted so much important time on this matter!!

  2. Annie says:

    Anyone who has scanned the politics section on CL can see how wise that decision is.
    Absolutely, they were right to push the ‘protestors’ back.
    As much as I agree we need to protect our 1st amendment rights,we also need to protect people from radical protesters.
    It seems they think they are the only ones who have 1st amendment rights.
    It is good to see true justice.

  3. Jim says:

    I am a 100% non-violent person. I also do not own any weapons whose primary design is for killing animals (especially humans) and would be quite uncomfortable even holding one (which I was as a youngster when hands-on instructed in that by my father.)

    I know that many other people feel comfortable with it, though, some of them friends of mine and some of those friends for 30-50 years. None of them, though, demonstrate the casual, careless and scary weapons brandishing behaviors I have seen among the class of so-called “Conservative” gun owners. And how many expert snipers are “protesters”?

    Singling-out “protesters” as a group to keep away from the President based on the notion that only they could contain individuals that might pose a “weapons” risk to the President is naive. If I was someone who wanted to harm the President (something I have NEVER felt like doing, even to Dick Cheney whom I consider to have been the most sociopathic menace to the noble platitudes of “America” and its inhabitants ever to have his hands on the White House controls — although I do admit that I have often hoped the Devil would call him home sooner than later) and I was weapon-comfortable, I would quack like a “supporter” in order to increase my chances of getting to exercise harm with one. Again, I don’t mean “I”, I mean a hypothetical person. I used “I” to illustrate a point.

Comments have been disabled.