Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Do you think this is a good reason to be charged with a federal crime?

Posted by   + Show Post

Supreme Court spectator interrupts justices

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/supreme-court-disturbance/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court was the scene of an unusual disturbance during its public session on Wednesday, when a man interrupted an oral argument.

The incident occurred near the end of debate between the nine justices on the bench and counsel, in a case over attorney fees in patent disputes.

A man in a suit and dark tie rose from near the back of the marbled courtroom, and began loudly talking.

Witnesses said he spoke about the need to keep campaign finance reform laws in place to regulate election spending and contributions.

"Money is not speech," he reportedly said. "Overturn 'Citizens United!'" referring to a 2010 high court decision loosening a century of federal restrictions on corporate spending by "independent" groups like businesses and unions.

He was only able say a few words before police escorted him from the courtroom, and did not resist.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg identified the man as Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles.

Newkirk has been charged with violating federal law that makes it a crime to "harangue" or utter "loud threatening or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building."

The justices ignored the incident.

The court's official written transcript of the argument made no mention of the remarks.

Such outbursts are rare.

Court officials say the last time it happened was eight years ago, during an oral argument over a federal law restricting a certain type of later-term abortion procedure.

A similar interruption occurred about two decades ago.

The courtroom has about 330 seats available to the public. Court security instructs spectators before each public session to remain seated, not to speak, or demonstrate.

Signs also are not allowed, nor are any electronics or cameras.

by on Feb. 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Replies (21-29):
snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM
Absolutely it should be a Federal crime. I occured in a federal building and broke Federal law. It couldn't be anything but
autodidact
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM

"Money is not speech," he reportedly said. "Overturn 'Citizens United!'" 

does not justify that charge. 

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 5:51 PM

broke the law cited how, exactly? 

Quoting snookyfritz: Absolutely it should be a Federal crime. I occured in a federal building and broke Federal law. It couldn't be anything but


snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:14 PM
did you read the charge? Trials aren't heard in the Supreme Court. Lawyers present appeals. It's not an open forum for free speech

Quoting autodidact:

broke the law cited how, exactly? 

Quoting snookyfritz: Absolutely it should be a Federal crime. I occured in a federal building and broke Federal law. It couldn't be anything but

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM

I did, and it didn't fit his speech as described in the OP. Thanks loads for the condescension but it doesn't really answer my question. 

Quoting snookyfritz: did you read the charge? Trials aren't heard in the Supreme Court. Lawyers present appeals. It's not an open forum for free speech
Quoting autodidact:

broke the law cited how, exactly? 

Quoting snookyfritz: Absolutely it should be a Federal crime. I occured in a federal building and broke Federal law. It couldn't be anything but


snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM
1 mom liked this

Of course it answered it. It did fit the charge.  The SCOTUS is not an open forum.  No debate, no trials, no discussion from lay people.  The exclamation points imply loud and excited.  You cannot just walk into a session and start making unrelated remarks.  The guy needs an extra charge for absolute disrespect to the court.  Contempt for starters. 

Quoting autodidact:

I did, and it didn't fit his speech as described in the OP. Thanks loads for the condescension but it doesn't really answer my question. 

Quoting snookyfritz: did you read the charge? Trials aren't heard in the Supreme Court. Lawyers present appeals. It's not an open forum for free speech
Quoting autodidact:

broke the law cited how, exactly? 

Quoting snookyfritz: Absolutely it should be a Federal crime. I occured in a federal building and broke Federal law. It couldn't be anything but


LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:50 PM
1 mom liked this
Whether it should be a crime at all, or whether it should be a federal crime? Yes, to both.

Quoting UpSheRises:

 I guess what i am asking is wether or not you think it should be.


Quoting LauraKW: It's a federal crime because it's a federal jurisdiction, not because of the severity.

 

m.garcia21
by Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:56 PM
This

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 His outburst wasn't threatening or abusive, no it shouldn't be a federal crime

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Feb. 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM
1 mom liked this

Federal Property / Federal Jurisdiction = A Federal Crime period.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN