Skip to main content

View Diary: Watch heckler inside Supreme Court shout money is not speech (237 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  His charges carry a maximum of 6 months... (15+ / 0-)

    ...and $5,000 fine.

    I hope this event gets in the news tomorrow.

    Money out of politics! Starting with Kai's arrest.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:07:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Whether the media carries this story of civil (14+ / 0-)

      disobedience is a major test of whether our national media is free and unencumbered by corporate shackles or what we will learn from the media is only what these self-protecting interests will allow to be aired.

      Watch the TV news and newspapers tomorrow to see if this Supreme Court incident is reported or, if not, despair over the loss of our freedom. Yes, it does boil down to that.

      •  CNN coverage (11+ / 0-)

        Link

        Their emphasis seems to be on the fact that SCOTUS was recorded on video, but they mention the Citizens United protest.

        WaPo coverage

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:23:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting omission (0+ / 0-)

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:11:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think the real result of this will be a (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, GreenMother, nextstep

        crack down on what you can bring into the gallery. If you could bring cell phones before, that's probably off the list now.

        Why would this one person breaking the rules at the SCOTUS be worth a big news story? Citizens United was decided three years ago. It's not a new story and will likely take a constitutional amendment to change.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          of demonstrating inside a court room. Courts do not operate on the basis of democracy or popularity, they operate according to the rule of law.

          Demonstrate towards Congress or the White House. That makes sense.

          •  .... come on... (7+ / 0-)

            its publicty..  made the news...   brought citizens united to forefront again...

            •  All publicity is not good (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              I think stunts like this do more harm then good, because it brings opponents of Citizens United into disrepute by association.

              •  Oh, BS (5+ / 0-)

                  If citizens of a Democracy can't speak up in a government building, where can they?  It's about time someone pulled this off. Kudos to Kai!  He didn't heckle anyone, he just spoke strongly. He got the statement out there that millions of people want Citizens United overturned. That needs to be hammered home as often and in as many places as possible.  Hope it goes viral!  Would you have preferred he sent a polite note on the finest vellum?

                •  But can the Court... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, elmo, nextstep

                  ...actually conduct its business if an endless stream of citizens are giving speeches in the courtroom?  Are they supposed to just ignore the speeches and talk over them?

                  •  Yeah! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mskitty

                    I think the public SHOULD be heard by the Supreme Court.  If there's no formal way to do it, do it any way you can. As you saw, nobody can get in a whole speech. You have to make your point before you get dragged out.  Great nation where you can carry a gun just about anywhere, in some states, but speaking out before people who supposedly work FOR you gets you dragged off to jail.

                    •  Well, that's different. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JerryNA

                      But if you're doing civil disobedience, you kind of have to expect to get arrested, that being part of the deal.

                      I was reacting to the notion, perhaps not held by you, that standing up and giving a speech in the Supreme Court is an exercise of 1st Amendment expression. If that was the case, then I presume that any citizen would be allowed to exercise that right without getting dragged out.  Which would get silly, I think, with the Court trying to conduct their business in that kind of environment.

                      •  This Court has BEEN conducting BUSINESS veeery (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sendtheasteroid

                        quietly for way too long. It's about time someone stood up and said we do not agree, you are WRONG. I wish he had said "wrong as a matter of law and of humanity". The more publicity, the better.

                      •  Definitely (0+ / 0-)

                        It IS exercising your right to free speech. It wouldn't result in arrest IF there was an actual time allotted for citizens to speak. What would it hurt if people had even 1/2 hour each day to speak before the Supreme Court? Same for any gov't body. They're not royalty, after all, they're public employees. Some of them may think they're royalty, but we got rid of that ridiculousness for a very good reason. So do we sorta agree at least?

                        BTW, when I write to my Rep and Sens, I address them by their first names.  We're friendly here in Hawai'i,and they ARE our employees.  They write back with my first name, too.  It's all good, Brah!

                •  He got the statement out there (0+ / 0-)

                  that he wanted CU to be overturned. The protestor holds no position that allows him to speak for "millions".

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:40:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Millions (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mskitty, guntotindem, wilywascal

                    Really, you don't think he speaks for millions of us? Just because we're not actual members of 99Rise (yet) doesn't mean he can't speak for us.  He sure was speaking for ME!  And for all the other Occupy activists, I'd bet. Me thinks you've forgotten "civil disobedience." It's kind of a principle of Democracy and a good one in my book! If nobody seems to be listening, you have to kick a little shit.

          •  Bragging rights (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:54:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  if Alito can attend conservative fundraisers why (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sendtheasteroid

            can't we protest in his court? Where is there  any justice in aways ruling that the powerful don't have enough power nor do the rich have enough wealth?

            The joints a kangaroo court.

        •  SCOTUS is hearing a new case expanding CU (5+ / 0-)

          It has broad implications that will further corrupt political campaigns and increase the volume of unregulated, secret political donations. The case is discussed at the diary link.

          And yes, Citizens United can and should be overturned. Its very doable, but to say so within the DC bubble is forbidden.

          It will likely become an issue in 2016 campaigns. Its very unpopular with voters.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:30:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Betty - what case is that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ccyd, Adam B

            If you are thinking of McCutcheon v FEC you have absolutely no understanding of the case. If you would like to educate yourself to the actual issues in the case I would recommend this article "In Plain English" at the award winning scotusblog.com.

            http://www.scotusblog.com/...

            I have been hoping that Adam would write a diary on McCutcheon but he hasn't and has encouraged me to. I might because all of the diaries on this case published to date have been so full of misinformation that I have no idea where the authors are sourcing their material. It's certainly not from the case documents or the briefs filed.

            Citizens Untied can be overturned when a few conservative judges retire and are replaced by Democratic nominees. It cannot be overturned legislatively. I think the fear is that too much time will pass and that it will be established precedent before that happens. And there is not universal condemnation of CU by liberals and their allies, the majority opinion had support in briefs by both the AFL-CIO and ACLU.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:10:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, but no thanks (0+ / 0-)

              IANAL, the information is at the diary link. I prefer to get my information from a variety of legal sources.

              I dont waste time reading the spin of those who pretend to oppose CU, but actually want to keep it in place to maintain the corporate gravy train and struggle to keep an ironclad grip on the Democratic Party. Thats why we  hear nothing from DC neolibs about CU, except occasional whining about how they can't change it. They're self serving, impotent and dishonest when it comes to campaign finance and lobbying reform.

              Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

              by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:56:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  scotusblog.com has no left or right bias (0+ / 0-)

                The information there in non-partisan. There is lots of information at Scotusblog for lawyers, but more importantly they have analysis, including their award winning "In Plain English" columns that are designed to help lay readers understand the legal issues at hand from the perspective of both parties in the case. The articles at Scotusblog aren't trying to move anyone to a particular position or to favor one side over the other. Their goal is just to inform. It's a great resource for all cases before the SCOTUS.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:11:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Betty - in your comment to me you state (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ccyd, Adam B

                "SCOTUS is hearing a new case expanding CU."

                Nothing could be further from the truth. The cases could not be more unrelated. McCutcheon is exclusively about individuals making personal, disclosed, campaign contributions. It is not about corporations or independent expenditures.

                "will increase the volume of unregulated, secret political donations."

                That statement is false. McCutcheon is asking to make more regulated, disclosed, open, and transparent, campaign contributions.

                You really should take the few minutes it would take to educate yourself on this case.

                http://www.scotusblog.com/...

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:27:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The diary, the protestor and I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                  Their information about the case is in the diary and at the link.

                  Have a nice day.

                  Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                  by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:36:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Betty - the issues at hand in McCutcheon (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ccyd, Villanova Rhodes

                    are not a matter of opinion, that are a matter of facts. We may all disagree with how the Court should rule, but the basic issues are stated in every document filed with the Court by parties on both sides and others who support them. There is actually no debate on the issues, but much debate on the resolution.

                    The statement in the diary, and at the link, regarding McCutheon, is accurate "If the Court eliminates the cap on aggregate donations by an individual in an election cycle". That is true, the case is about individuals, making disclosed campaign contributions. What is false are the statements in your original comment to me.  

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:51:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Please stop stalking me (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Grabber by the Heel, Tonedevil

                      I'm not going to debate this issue with you because I favor acutally overturning CU, real campaign finance and lobbying reform and filling federal court vacancies with experienced jurists, not corporate attorneys.

                      We're from completely different worlds on this issue. Today's campaign finance system is corrupt.

                      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                      by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:15:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Jurists instead of corporate lawyers! You dream (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Betty Pinson, Tonedevil

                        beautiful dreams Betty.

                      •  Betty - I have absolutely no issue with your view (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        nextstep, ccyd, Adam B, Villanova Rhodes

                        on campaign finance, respect your view on Citizens United and the outcome you hope for on McCutcheon. However, when you write about specific cases, please be accurate. It's not that difficult to check your facts.

                        We have had a mountain of misinformation written here about both Citiizens United and McCutcheon and what is written here is echoed through the internet.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:22:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I have repeatedly referred you to the diary (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tonedevil

                          and the links therein.  If you have a problem, take it up with the diarist and the activists at the link.

                          I'm warning you one last time to stop stalking me.

                          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                          by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:34:53 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Extending a civil debate is stalking? (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Villanova Rhodes, VClib, nextstep

                          After reading this exchange, this is my summary:

                          Her:  [repeating some erroneous information]

                          You:  Here is a great resource that would help you understand the case.

                          Her:  I prefer to get my information from other people who are ignorant of the facts.

                          You:  No, really.  You should inform yourself if you are going to be posting stuff here.

                          Her:  I disagree, therefore you are stalking me.

                          It was a good try, VClib, but you can't win them all over.  As for that stalking thing, ignoring you was apparently not an option for her.

                          Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

                          by ccyd on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:55:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ccyd - My understanding is that stalking requires (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Villanova Rhodes, ccyd

                            that you follow people from one diary into another, or several more. As you note I was just trying to have her read a one page summary so the next time she writes about McCutheon she would at least understand the facts of the case. She kept referring back to the diary author who actually had an accurate description of a key element of the case, which she had contradicted in her initial comment to me. I thought it was the Republicans who had the view "don't bother me with the facts".

                            I know that campaign finance is very complex and wonky but we publish a large amount of misinformation here on the topic. I certainly understand why people want to get big money out of politics and that's great. But instead of staying focused on the big picture they start writing about specific cases and regulations, and that's when many run off the tracks.  

                            Thank you for your kind words and support.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:16:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not just campaign finance (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib, Villanova Rhodes

                            I have found that many, many legal issues get distorted here.  I guess it comes from people being passionate, not understanding how the courts work, and wishing the law was something other than it is.  There is one person here who posts every time a judge makes a ruling he/she doesn't like that the judge is corrupt.  I made a challenge that he/she produce some evidence, and that resulted in repeated ad hominem attacks.

                            Keep up the good fight.  It is arduous, but sometimes you can peel back the veneer of ignorance.

                            Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

                            by ccyd on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:32:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ccyd - well stated (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Villanova Rhodes

                            You are right it's not just campaign finance law, it's legal issues more broadly, although the campaign laws are very wonky. I know its endemic on the Internet but I am always disappointed to read so much legal misinformation published here.

                            There was a diary published in the last day or so that had a long segment from Cenk Uygar discussing the Supreme Court protester, Citizens United, and McCutcheon. He had at least five profound errors of fact in his monologue, so it's no wonder people here are misinformed.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 12:31:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see that you follow Adam B (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Villanova Rhodes

                            He is a gem, and my favorite author here too.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 12:33:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We worked for the same firm in Philadelphia (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            Not at the same time, but we are both alumni of Cozen O'Connor.

                            Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

                            by ccyd on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 04:12:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  I wish you would write that diary. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              I seldom check my diary stream, but I'm going to follow you and try to remember to check it more often. Feel free to kosmail me if you do post it, to increase the chances I'll see it. But don't stalk me or anything ;-)

          •  McCutcheon has to do with disclosed contributions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Villanova Rhodes, VClib

            They will remain regulated, limited, and publicly disclosed.  The only question is as to who can make them.

      •  On Channel 4 here in DC ... (10+ / 0-)

        they mentioned the story, all right, and showed part of a clip of the protest, but NEVER MENTIONED what the protester was talking about. So, uniformed viewers saw civil disobedience without the meaning, without the substance of the message. Typical corporate MSM bullshit. We are not free.

        Stupid Quaternary Period!

        by obatanga night on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:56:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  DC bubble is so tightly controlled (3+ / 0-)

          Public opinion and discourse is amazingly manipulated there. It's been shocking to observe the progression on my regular visits there, beginning around the time of Bush II's election and 911.

          People who haven't visited should. Observe the local news media,  wall to wall ads on local tv and radio, the posters and billboards in the airports and metro stations pushing military spending, business deregulation, ag subsidies, etc.  Its pretty shocking to any outsider who is paying attention.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:41:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the DC bubble has a goal--Maximum Stress, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Betty Pinson

            Minimum usable information.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:13:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  True Test? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        There are multiple 1-person protests at the WH everyday for causes many people think are wholly justified and critically important to the existence of our Republic.

        They aren't covered.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:43:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Surprising. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, Shockwave

      I would have expected it to be a minimum of 5 years, and a maximum of being thrown into a maximum security prison for life.  Can't threaten the powers that be, ya know.

      All kidding aside .... I'm not kidding.

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:19:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  .. so its like a protest buffer zone... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave

      where did I just read something about that and the SC...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site