He obviously should have been shot on site.

Prof. Gottesman is the man.

Next time keep the button on and sue for a civil rights infraction. You could have retired on this one.

And/or on sight.

In state court, the deputies often fail to grasp basic constit. principles. Who knew it could happen in SCOTUS too. I'm guessing that like state court, for the most part it's not worth the bother to convince them they're wrong.

Time-place-manner restrictions. Kid should shut up--he's got thousands of other locations to "demonstrate" in DC.

Time-Place-Manner cannot possibly justify restricting a small button with a presidential candidate's name while he's standing in line OUTSIDE.

And free speech restrictions wouldn't be worse under a Clinton administration???

He should have ignored her completly, until she finally lost it and forceably arrested him--better damages.

"Fuck the Draft."

Time, place and manner. Rember Con Law?

Take off the stupid button, wise ass. Let the lady do her job and quit trying to show everyone how oh so very smart you are. This type of jackass is why law students and lawyers have such a bad rep.

Unfortunately, so long as this guy stays in DC, he'll probably never understand why everyone thinks he's a douchbag.

Nice point, 11:02.

Don't tase him, sis!

NYU is just as good as Georgetown.

Do court houses qualify as a public forum or a non-public forum? If the former, then strict scrutiny would be applied to any restriction.

Take the stupid button off. He should have gotten beat just for supporting Hilary.

That's what you get for (1) wearing a Hillary button and (2) saying 'dang.'

Your mistake was wearing a Hillary button

T,P & M restrictions must still satisfy our various tests, e.g. rationale basis, strict scrutiny, etc., depending on the forum at issue.

Here, it seems the steps outside SCOTUS would fall squarely in the public forum realm, being held immemorially, time-out-of-mind, as a place where people can gather and exchange ideas.

Simple answer: can't stop him.
U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983)

I don't see how silently wearing a tiny, discreet campaign button - look at the picture - is "demonstrating" (to quote the SCOTUS cop).

The "manner" prong of time / place / manner goes in his favor.

11:02(2) - F the Draft is the correct response. On the courthouse steps is a protected place. If people don't want to see the words Hillary, which may cause as much hatred and excitement as F the Draft to others, they may turn away. Inside the courthouse may be another story as judges have near complete control of their courtrooms. If John G and the Supremes say no buttons, then no buttons.

Off the point, but Prof. Gottesman is a stud.

What a pussy! Someone shoot him for the sake of humanity!

Security Guards at SCOTUS to $6.25/hour!!!

Maybe she just felt like bullying the bucked tooth ninny.

11:09--Excellent observation

Was the deputy black?

Can we get an enterprising law student to look up the administrative rule rather than quote con law (and let analysis slide from there).

With regard to all of those saying "time, place, and manner restriction" that only applies if there is an existing or written policy. If the deputy is applying her discretion, she LOOSES.

I bet you dollars to donuts (heh) she wouldn't have asked me to cover up a military themed shirt.

With regard to all of those saying "time, place, and manner restriction" that only applies if there is an existing or written policy. If the deputy is applying her discretion, she LOSES.

I bet you dollars to donuts (heh) she wouldn't have asked me to cover up a military themed shirt.

With regard to all of those saying "time, place, and manner restriction" that only applies if there is an existing or written policy. If the deputy is applying her discretion, she LOSES.

I bet you dollars to donuts (heh) she wouldn't have asked me to cover up a military themed shirt.

It'd be interesting to see what would've happened had the guy had on a Clinton t-shirt or something that he couldn't really take off. Would he have had to leave?

11:42 - I wouldn't mind seeing a Hill Hottie with his shirt off....

40 USC Sec. 6135

Sec. 6135. Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

The officer is clearly a worthless Obama supporter. Remember the Nevada caucus -- voter intimidation aimed at Clinton supporters was the name of the game.

OK, what about if Hillary actually showed up? Isn't she a device that designed to bring into public notice a movement? I guess the cop could make her were a bag over her head.

11:48: 40 U.S.C. (s) 6135 is the 'new' version of (s) 13k (struck down in Grace). The latter clause only applies to activites within the Building. Only the former clause applies to activities on the grounds (which includes the sidewalks).

Is it really a hypothetical if it actually happened?

so who is going to volunteer to wear the button and get arrested ... and who is going to represent the volunteer pro bono?

12:00

learn to read. the second clause applies to both grounds and the building.

Standing in line wearing a single button supporting a political candidate does not seem to fit under the prohibition of "display[ing] . . . a . . . device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement." (A candidate is not a party.) Not to mention the 1st Amendment issue: regarding tm&p, it's the courthouse steps, the paradigmatic locus of political activity!

not a public forum. they can do whatever they want.

12:08 loses 10 points for saying "paradigmatic."

I got the same warning for wearing an Obama button at the SDNY yesterday. Of course, I was on the way out of the building, so it was just an FYI warning. I did think it a little strange, but the US Marshal's line was that no "political statements" were allowed.

I wore my McCain and NRA pin with no problem.

What if I'm wearing a Romney button ironically?

Don't you people know that buttons have been the downfall of nearly every great society?

Once you allow buttons on the plaza, it will encourage more, and bigger buttons until the plaza is consumed with nothing but human-sized buttons.

Is that what we want? A button plaza? How will the Court ever do its business with a gaggle of button-wearing idea-mongers parading around outside?

12:22 has his finger on the button.

The Supreme Court cannot prohibit political messages on the sidewalks surrounding the Court, but most likely can prohibit messages and signs on other parts of the Court's grounds. See United States v. Grace (1983).

i had professor gottesman as a 1l. he did not impress me much, but he did talk an awful lot about milkmaids.

Should have gotten arrested, and tested all this bar-failure nonsense being posted on this board. Would have made the news--HRC publicity... but now we are left with weak hypothetical being commented by whatever lame-ass law students are reading this over spring break, instead of being balls deep on high schoolers in Cancun.

What if I had a button that said "Equal Justice Under Law"?

After the first time he refused, she just should have told him to keep it on and get out of line -- no oral argument for you.

I have to think that the Court has near total discretion as to who to let into the building, buttons or no buttons, especially when they have already shown themselves to be meddlesome.

Over at Penn State School of Law in Philly, there's a big button by the undergrad library. It's right in front of the steps. Here's a picture.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/button-editorial.html

I think we should instead focus on that 50 most beautiful people list. It's umm...somethin'...

Nice Lat. You note that he's one of the 50 Most Beautiful People, but link to a page that calls him a "buck-toothed ninny."

What self respecting man wears a Hillary Clinton button?

i <3 the gottfather

all the awesomeness gottesman brings to GULC is tarnished by toolboxes like this tipster. take off the damn button.

Hillary button = take it off
Obama button = hugs, kisses, photo ops
McCain button = tasing, arrest, beating

Hillary to $400K (as POTUS, naturally)!

Gottesman turned down a Supreme Court argument in 2004 because he wanted to go Hawaii for vacation instead. Decisions, decisions....

2:58 That's why Gottesman is a stud.

Buck-toothed ninnies that wait in line outside the courthouse eventually become buck-toothed ninnies inside the courthouse. Buck-toothed ninnies should save everybody some time and take off their buttons. Buck-toothed ninny = buck-toothed douchebag.

11:48, if that's actually a statute, it's hilariously poorly written. The way it is written, it is unlawful for anyone to stand in the Supreme Court building or grounds, ever.

Observe, the first clause of the statute: "It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds..."

Okay, so to start out, it says you are not allowed to parade, stand, or more around on the property. Generally when you read something like this it is followed by a dependent clause, usually starting with "if" or "when" or something similar. E.g., it is unlawful to stand here if you are buck naked.

But... no such clause follows. Instead, an entirely NEW clause, imposing *additional* restrictions, follows, as signified by the "or": "or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."

So in other words, it's illegal either to parade, stand, or move on Supreme Court property, *or* to display banners and flags and such. BOTH are illegal, and EITHER is illegal, but the statute does not require that both happen at the same time. By the strict language of the statute, either activity is equally illegal.

Wonder what a strict constructionist like Scalia would have to say about that.

so, so glad i'm not in law school.

3:19 - Maybe it was written that way on purpose.

Thanks for playing. Please go back to your doc review.

3:32, if you can't "stand" on Supreme Court property, how are you supposed to get into the building to, say, watch an oral argument? For that matter, how are you supposed to stand in line?

Some people are willing to actually test this for something that matters

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/11/national/main3703413.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3703413

can I hyperlink on here?

The first part of the statute forbids "processions or assemblages," whether moving or static. Apparently you can stand or walk by yourself, but you better not display one of the forbidden "signs, banners, or devices."

3:37 - 1L, huh

Listen pal, just because a statute, or regulation says you "shall not" do something, it doesn't mean you are physically prevented from doing it. it just means that there are reprocusions for doing it. Anyone can stand in the courthouse, the regulation is just authority for someone to tell you that you can't, and to make you leave.

Again, please return to your doc review. And try to click your mouse quietly. The real lawyers upstairs are getting distracted.

You bunch of tools, look to the Court's regulations:

REGULATION SIX
This regulation is issued under authority of 40 U. S. C. §6102 to protect the Supreme Court Building and grounds, and persons and property thereon, and to maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court Building and grounds. Any person who fails to comply with this Regulation may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to 40 U. S. C. §6137.
The use of signs on the perimeter sidewalks on the Supreme Court grounds is regulated as follows:
1. No signs shall be allowed except those made of cardboard, posterboard, or cloth.
2. Supports for signs must be entirely made of wood, have dull ends, may not be hollow, and may not exceed ¹ inch at their largest point. There shall be no nails, screws, or bolt-type fastening devices protruding from the wooden supports.
3. Hand-carried signs are allowed regardless of size.
4. Signs that are not hand-carried are allowed only if they are
(a) no larger than 4 feet in length, 4 feet in width, and × inch in thickness (exclusive of braces that are reasonably required to meet support and safety requirements, as set forth in section 2 above), and not elevated so as to exceed a height of 6 feet above the ground at their highest point;
(b) not used so as to form an enclosure of two or more sides;
(c) attended at all times (attended means that an individual must remain within 3 feet of each sign); and
(d) not arranged in such manner as to create a single sign that exceeds the size limitations in subsection (a).
5. No individual may have more than two non-hand-carried signs at any one time.
Notwithstanding the above, no person shall carry or place any sign in such a manner as to impede pedestrian traffic, access to and from the Supreme Court Plaza or Building, or to cause any safety or security hazard to any person.
Approved and Effective April 25, 2000

"Five" is right out!

Maybe he should have worn more flair... the cop clearly had a case of the Mondays.

I believe that the T-shirt would fall under the cloth permit.

Next time, wear a t-shirt...or a cloth patch.

They also might be worried that he would kill someone inside by pricking someone with the pin hundreds of thousands of times. Those things can be VERY dangerous...second only to bottles of water carried onto airplanes (that is unless the bottle of water was purchase at a 500% premium at an airport gift shop).

4:16's awfully hostile and sure of him/herself for someone who apparently thinks 1Ls do doc review...

I would hate to have gone to your law school. Doc review's bad enough once you've done three years of it for a 6-figure salary.

someone tattoo "Vote 4 Hillary" on their forehead - i'd like to see them kick me out of line.

Sam,

You should have made her arrest you. I'd have even shown up to bail you out. What a great story to tell my friends from you-know-where.

Get back in the closet, cry baby. Maybe you should have pinned it to your Buffalo Bills sweatshirt. They're both big losers.

A petition for this? Really? With 3,997 American servicemembers killed in Iraq, this is worthy of a petition from this celebrity? Wow.

Sam should know better. In his own office on the hill he is prohibited from wearing campaign items. The Supreme court is a body that arguably offers every citizen the equal access to the court to make their case. If partisan protesting or campaigning were allowed in and on the grounds of the supreme court it would infringe the rights of those given the opportunity to present their case that day. Finally, you do not have a right to view a supreme court hearing. At the slightest distraction or anticipated distraction the court has the authority to clear the chamber, the building, and the grounds. Sams constitutional right to free speech does not superceed the constitutional right of due process especially at the level of the supreme court where often one or both sides represent millions to billions of American citizens.

3/19 4:23's post refers to the perimiter sidewalks, not the plaza where people line up for arguments with intent on entering the courtroom.

"Please refrain from taking the following items into the Courtroom
when Court is in session: cameras, radios, pagers, tape players, cell phones, tape recorders, other electronic equipment, hats, overcoats, magazines and books, briefcases and luggage. Sunglasses, identification tags (other than military), display buttons and inappropriate
clothing may not be worn."

From visitors guide to oral arguments. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.pdf)

3/19 4:23's post refers to the perimiter sidewalks, not the plaza where people line up for arguments with intent on entering the courtroom.

"Please refrain from taking the following items into the Courtroom
when Court is in session: cameras, radios, pagers, tape players, cell phones, tape recorders, other electronic equipment, hats, overcoats, magazines and books, briefcases and luggage. Sunglasses, identification tags (other than military), display buttons and inappropriate
clothing may not be worn."

From visitors guide to oral arguments. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.pdf)