So...is SCOTUS own 'buffer zone' now unconstitutional?

[trof]

40 U.S. Code § 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. "
http://prairieprogressive.com/2014/06/27/is-there-irony-in-the-supreme-courts-buffer-zone-ruling/

[former9thward]

1. No.

Courthouse security has been around forever. The SC did not eliminate buffer zones around abortion clinics. They said 35 feet was unreasonable given the circumstances.

[trof]

2. So...what? 25"? 10"?

I see that MA is already taking steps to try and provide safety to clinic patients.
Good for them.

The SCOTUS buffer zone of 'grounds', the steps and plaza, has nothing to do with security.

And still no photos or videos in the court.

[former9thward]

3. The court is recorded.

You can listen to it anytime. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Why is a video needed? The buffer zone around the court prevents disruption which is a proper security concern. Go do a demonstration in the chambers of your local courthouse and see what happens.

To your question the court said in an earlier case an 8 foot law was reasonable in that case. People drawing up buffer zones need to look at the reasoning in both cases to give them guidelines for what is reasonable.

[trof]

4. Why doesn't C-Span just 'audio record' congress?

Because VIDEO and sound trumps only sound.
That's why TV is so popular and radio has been relegated to music, 'news', sports talk, and talk shows.

You want to SEE what's actually transpiring.
Am I really explaining this to you?

We're not talking at all about a 'demonstration' IN the chambers of a local courthouse.
Of course not.

We're talking about OUTSIDE the courthouse.
jeez

[former9thward]

5. The 'buffer zone' doesn't seem to impede demonstrations at the court.

Congress allows itself to be videotaped because they are elected politicians. They love the free camera time. It helps at election time. The Supreme court does not have to go with theatrics. All of the justices are opposed to video at the court.

[trof]

6. I think you miss my point.

One picture is worth a thousand words.
One video is worth a thousand + pictures.
Video provides insight, atmosphere, nuance, 'feel'.

Since an individual (if they're lucky enough to get in to the hallowed chambers) can observe the goings on, tone of voice, facial expressions, why not the public at large?

It makes no sense.
Why are they hiding?

[former9thward]

7. What are they hiding?

I think you should answer your own question. Since it is recorded, what could they be hiding? Their appearance? Maybe. Most of them are old and not particularly attractive. That may be the reason.

[trof]

8. Uncle.

You don't understand me.
I understand that.
I give.
This is pointless.