Supreme Court rejects case of woman ejected from Bush speech

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She was removed from the audience because of an antiwar bumper sticker on her car. The justices, on a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling that the action by Bush aides did not violate the 1st Amendment.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down a lawsuit today against aides to former President George W. Bush for having ejected a Colorado woman from one of his public speeches because her car had a bumper sticker that said "No More Blood for Oil."

By a 7-2 vote, the court let stand a ruling that held the president is free to select his audience at public speeches and to have his aides remove persons who may disagree with him.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the Constitution does not permit officials to exclude persons simply "for holding discordant views."

The Bush White House had a policy of excluding dissidents and protesters from the president's public appearances. In several lawsuits that arose, aides said they wanted to prevent critics from disrupting his speeches.

In the Colorado case, however, there was no allegation that Leslie Weise, a clean-energy consultant, had protested or threatened the president. She had obtained a ticket to an event in Denver in 2005 where the president was due to speak about Social Security. But when aides to Bush learned of the bumper sticker on her car, they had her removed from her seat and escorted away.

She later sued Michael Casper and another official who made the decision to remove her. They admitted afterward that the bumper sticker was the basis for their action.

A second person, Alex Young, was tossed out of the Bush speech and joined the lawsuit.

But a federal judge in Denver and the U.S. court of appeals there ruled that excluding the pair did not violate the 1st Amendment. "President Bush had the right, at his own speech, to ensure that only his message was conveyed," wrote Judge Wiley Daniel in dismissing the suit.

Weise and Young appealed to the Supreme Court with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and argued that when government officials are "speaking at events that are open to the public and paid for by the taxpayers," they may not screen out persons based solely on their views.

They acknowledged that the president or other elected officials may screen the audience when they are speaking at partisan political gatherings or at private gatherings.

The justices without comment turned down the appeal in Weise vs. Casper.

"Official reprisal for protected speech offends the Constitution," Ginsburg said in her two-page dissent, "because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right."

david.savage@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.c...,0,789843.story

[^_^ 5,021]

Weise and Young appealed to the Supreme Court with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and argued that when government officials are "speaking at events that are open to the public and paid for by the taxpayers," they may not screen out persons based solely on their views.

They acknowledged that the president or other elected officials may screen the audience when they are speaking at partisan political gatherings or at private gatherings.

The justices without comment turned down the appeal in Weise vs. Casper.

That sounds outrageous but given the 7-2 margin this is clearly not a wingnut decision... which makes me wonder if this article is deliberately misrepresenting the ruling.

Edited October 12, 2010 by \

[TBoneTX 45,365]

makes me wonder if this article is deliberately misrepresenting the ruling.

Same here, or not reporting all of the facts of the event. The L.A. Times? Hmmmmm...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That sounds outrageous but given the 7-2 margin this is clearly not a wingnut decision... which makes me wonder if this article is deliberately misrepresenting the ruling.

Justice Ginsberg makes a compelling argument.

[^_^ 5,021]

Justice Ginsberg makes a compelling argument.

OK.

[^_^ 5,021]

Here is an article on the 10th circuit ruling that SCOTUS has let stand:

DENVER (CN) - The 10th Circuit rejected the First Amendment claims of two friends who were booted from a George W. Bush speech in Denver because they had arrived in a car with a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker.

Leslie Weise and Alex Young failed to establish that their mere "presence at the president's speech was protected," the three-judge panel ruled.

"Plaintiffs simply have not identified any First Amendment doctrine that prohibits the government from excluding them from an official speech on private property on the basis of their viewpoint," Judge Paul Kelly wrote for the 2-1 majority.

...

"Although defendants ejected (plaintiffs) from the event on the basis of their speech outside the event, plaintiffs have identified no authority suggesting that mere attendance is transformed into speech or even expressive activity because of their speech elsewhere," Judge Kelly wrote.

"Because it is plain that the constitutional right claimed was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity."

Clearly a narrow legal technicality, which 7 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS agree with. I see no problem here.

Edited October 12, 2010 by \

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here is an article on the 10th circuit ruling that SCOTUS has let stand:

Clearly a narrow legal technicality, which 7 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS agree with. I see no problem here.

If it was on private property, then it makes more sense to me. If the speech had been at a public venue, then I think that is an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights.

[^_^ 5,021]

If it was on private property, then it makes more sense to me. If the speech had been at a public venue, then I think that is an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights.

The circuit court ruling, as I understand it, is that attendance is not speech or expressive activity. The Bush people didn't let them attend; they didn't rip their stickers off their cars or cut their tongues out. They just didn't let them attend and attending is not speech or expressive activity and therefore not 1st Amendment protected.

I don't see a real problem with this.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Clearly a narrow legal technicality, which 7 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS agree with. I see no problem here.

tell that to the two dissenting wingnuts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The circuit court ruling, as I understand it, is that attendance is not speech or expressive activity. The Bush people didn't let them attend; they didn't rip their stickers off their cars or cut their tongues out. They just didn't let them attend and attending is not speech or expressive activity and therefore not 1st Amendment protected.

I don't see a real problem with this.

I don't know - if the Supreme Court can interpret money as equivalent to free speech, attending a political event is far more logically a form of free speech, IMO.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't know - if the Supreme Court can interpret money as equivalent to free speech, attending a political event is far more logically a form of free speech, IMO.

The way I see it, for something to be expressive activity, there must be something I'm trying to express. There must be a message.

If you run for Senate and I give you money, I'm clearly expressing my support for your candidacy. I have a message there.

But if you run for Senate and all I do is show up at your rally, that I have a message to convey is less clear. I could just be a curious onlooker who has heard all about the bearded Marxist running for office in Arizona and wanted to check him out for himself. There may or may not be a message in my attendance. That's not clear at all.

But if I give you money, that I have a message is clear.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The way I see it, for something to be expressive activity, there must be something I'm trying to express. There must be a message.

If you run for Senate and I give you money, I'm clearly expressing my support for your candidacy. I have a message there.

But if you run for Senate and all I do is show up at your rally, that I have a message to convey is less clear. I could just be a curious onlooker who has heard all about the bearded Marxist running for office in Arizona and wanted to check him out for himself. There may or may not be a message in my attendance. That's not clear at all.

But if I give you money, that I have a message is clear.

I disagree. Giving money can convey a whole array of motivations, not necessarily because the donor agrees with the politicians ideas. But comparatively, like giving money, showing up at a political speech is giving your time and attention.