Chicago girl jailed over shirt worn in court.

[Guest Caveman]

In my OPINION, if you are in the courtroom observing a judicial proceeding, you have connected yourself to it.

Since when do you get to have an opinion???

[Guest boatme99]

Perhaps the artical title should have been: Moron gets life lesson.

[Garufa]

I'm honestly surpised this thing has gone on for so long. The only law in a courtroom in this country is what the presiding judge says it is. They have wide latitude in determining and enforcing how the procedings in the room are conducted.

If our "Burger King, have it your way society" were allowed to act however they damn well please in a courtroom it would be complete and utter chaos. There is no free speech in court. Two sides are allowed to present their arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope the ho learned something from her 48 and others take notice.

[Mark@Sea]

How is her shirt in violation of "Control, in furtherance of justice..."?

It also states "and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding".

She was not connected to the judicial proceeding.

Maintaining decorum in the courtroom might be considered "in furtherance of justice". She was in the courtroom, she was connected. Now if the judge looked out the window and saw her walking down the street, that'd be a whorse of a different color...

[strickj]

I'm honestly surpised this thing has gone on for so long. The only law in a courtroom in this country is what the presiding judge says it is. They have wide latitude in determining and enforcing how the procedings in the room are conducted.

If our "Burger King, have it your way society" were allowed to act however they damn well please in a courtroom it would be complete and utter chaos. There is no free speech in court. Two sides are allowed to present their arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope the ho learned something from her 48 and others take notice.

So it would be fine for a judge to make up other laws just because,too?

Maybe make a law saying Jewish people should be jailed?

Maybe all 42 year old white guys should be jailed?

I'm sorry, but our system was not set up for one person to have sole power to make laws as they see fit.

[Guest Jamie]

I'm sorry, but our system was not set up for one person to have sole power to make laws as they see fit.

In this case, the LAW says the judge can set the rules and the punishment for breaking them for his/her courtroom.

So in effect, the judge isn't making up any laws, only using the ones already there.

Now, you can cuss and snort and throw a fit about this fact all you like - at least outside the courtroom - but that is the law. And it's been that way for a very long time now.

J.

P.S. There's probably a limit to how long you can be jailed for contempt of court... and it's probably something like 30 days in the county jail.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Jamie

[strickj]

In this case, the LAW says the judge can set the rules and the punishment for breaking them for his/her courtroom.

So in effect, the judge isn't making up any laws, only using the ones already there.

Now, you can cuss and snort and throw a fit about this fact all you like - at least outside the courtroom - but that is the law. And it's been that way for a very long time now.

J.

What law did the shirt break?

This isn't it...

Control, in furtherance of justice...

Unless her shirt caused a ruckus,etc , there was no impeding on justice.

If a judge can jail someone over a shirt in the name of that, what's to stop a judge from jailing someone for being white\wearing pink shoe laces\being bald\being Christian\whatever, all in the name of "furtherance of justice"?

Last I checked, this is still America, isn't it?

Where n the Constitution does it give judges the right to jail someone over a dress?

Where does it give a judge to disregard the 1st...or any other amendment?

Edited May 7, 2010 by strickj

[Smith]

strick, in theory I agree that Judges may have too much leeway and authority in some cases. For instance I think Judge Judy is a total jerk who uses her position to flaunt her ego. However, there has to be some strict governing authority in a court room. It just so happens the constitution and the law has determined that to be a judge. As one who works depositions, I can tell you that lawyers, defendants, the prosecution will play on the very edges of civility. Winning is more important than principal in most cases. Right - not always, but that's the way the founding fathers saw fit to structure things and to give judges the authority and governance in a court of law. If they weren't strict it can get out of hand very quickly and then you have another OJ trial. That whole debacle was a prime example of a judge that lost control over the court room and when that happens just becomes a sideshow.

[Guest Jamie]

Where n the Constitution does it give judges the right to jail someone over a dress?

The constitution didn't do it directly... the state did. Which would seem to be within the state's constitutional authority to do.

Besides, getting jailed over your appearance or dress isn't anything new or unheard-of... Or are you not familiar with the indecent exposure laws?

J.

[strickj]

strick, in theory I agree that Judges may have too much leeway and authority in some cases. For instance I think Judge Judy is a total jerk who uses her position to flaunt her ego. However, there has to be some strict governing authority in a court room. It just so happens the constitution and the law has determined that to be a judge. As one who works depositions, I can tell you that lawyers, defendants, the prosecution will play on the very edges of civility. Winning is more important than principal in most cases. Right - not always, but that's the way the founding fathers saw fit to structure things and to give judges the authority and governance in a court of law. If they weren't strict it can get out of hand very quickly and then you have another OJ trial. That whole debacle was a prime example of a judge that lost control over the court room and when that happens just becomes a sideshow.

I agree that judges should have control of a courtroom.

However, judges should not have the right to jail someone over an opinion or for being offended when no laws have been broken.

[strickj]

The constitution didn't do it directly... the state did. Which would seem to be within the state's constitutional authority to do.

Besides, getting jailed over your appearance or dress isn't anything new or unheard-of... Or are you not familiar with the indecent exposure laws?

J.

Was she naked?

Is being naked in public protected by the constitution?

Being nude in public is against the law.

Wearing a shirt with something written on it is not against the law.

[Smith]

I agree that judges should have control of a courtroom.

However, judges should not have the right to jail someone over an opinion or for being offended when no laws have been broken.

Could be a bit excessive. Judge could have just dismissed her or a number of other things .... assuming the story goes as the girl said, unlikely however. I can almost guarantee there is more to the story. If her account is accurate then very well could be an ego tripped judge. With power comes responsibility and not all manage that responsibility well.

[Mark@Sea]

If I'd been the judge, I'd have given her a week

[SonnyCrockett]

you cant fix stupid.......jail time is overkill IMO but holy smokes

she was dumb

[GKar]

Some folks just like to push the boundaries, but then squeal like pigs when the boundaries push back. Perhaps, in order to protect others' sensitivities, the judge shoulda just given her the ***-kickin her momma forgot...

[Mike.357]

I'm pretty sure he was quoting "Anchorman." The "stay classy" quote was Ron Burgundy's closing line. Leave it to you to over analyze the joke.

what is Anchorman and who is ron burgundy?

[strickj]

Could be a bit excessive. Judge could have just dismissed her or a number of other things .... assuming the story goes as the girl said, unlikely however. I can almost guarantee there is more to the story. If her account is accurate then very well could be an ego tripped judge. With power comes responsibility and not all manage that responsibility well.

Oh, there's no argument from me as to being more to the story.

The girl, being 19 and all, more then likely got a bit sassy with the judge, too.

But, there is no law about giving a judge a bit of tongue.

If a cop locked someone up for nothing more then a differencing of opinion,dress, etc, there would be all hell to pay.

We do not allow our officers to do that and a judge should be no different.

Now, don't get me wrong here. It's only common sense to be 'proper' while in court (or in the presence of an officer) but there is certainly no law that say's you have to.

[Guest RevScottie]

Here's a question, would everyone feel the same way if the woman had been jailed for wearing a shirt that said "Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"?

[G27]

Now, don't get me wrong here. It's only common sense to be 'proper' while in court (or in the presence of an officer) but there is certainly no law that say's you have to.

I suspect there is, we just don't know where to look.

Judges have long had fairly extreme latitude within the confines of their courts and surely some of those decisions have been challenged.

[leroy]

To all who have opined on this issue:______________

It has been a delightful read for me. Thank you all for the great entertainment and a smattering of real insight.

I have a proposal:

I propose that we select a "champion" -- a real radical libertarian -- who is utterly fearless and willing to go to the bitter end to put into the forefront this heinous injustice of judicial narcissism, raw exercise of judicial power, and abridgement of the First Amendment. That person needs to be someone from this forum; a person we all know and trust; who will accurately, coherently, and artfully report the results of that testing of the limits of judicial authority. They also need to have some extra time on their hands because as I remember, contempt of court aint a bailable offense. This person needs to be argumentative in the extreme so he (...or she...) can sufficiently agitate the judge to get an adequate test of the jurist's forbearance. He (...or she...) can travel to the nearest court (...preferably a Federal one...) and try the presiding judge with overbearing and impudent disregard for the office and person of the court; then gage the results (...if any---my guess is that there will be some…).

I am honored to be the first to be willing to contribute up to $10.00 smackaroos American to the TGO Benevolence Fund for Jailed Members. Having said all this, I open the floor to take nominations for this fearless individual who stands among us within the TGO Community.

Now, all we need to do is to tally the results and appoint a Treasurer to distribute the collected monies.

Waiting to contribute and excited to hear who the champion will be.

(...By the way, I have excused myself from this competition. "If nominated, I will not run; if drafted, I will not serve!!...).

Kind regards (...with money in hand...)

Radical Libertarian,

Leroy

[Guest Caveman]

what is Anchorman and who is ron burgundy?

Anchorman is a movie starring Will Ferrell. The character he plays is Ron Burgundy. He is a news anchor and his closing line after a broadcast is "stay classy San Diego."

[strickj]

You may make a joke of this, leroy, but let me ask this.

If the court can remove one's 1st Amendment rights regarding a word on a shirt, then what's stopping the court from removing your other rights as he sees fit?

Lets say you,leroy, forget to remove your hat that says "John Deer" and the judge finds this offensive being a Cat fan-boy. He then imprisons you and tells you, you may no longer own firearms.

He has then unjustifiably removed your 1st amendment rights and your 2nd.

Is that a-ok, too?

Or is it only ok in THIS case because the girl look like a 'skank'?

Are your rights more important then a 'skank's' rights?

Kind regards

One who believes in the Constitution

strickj

Edited May 7, 2010 by strickj

[E4 No More]

To all who have opined on this issue:______________

It has been a delightful read for me. Thank you all for the great entertainment and a smattering of real insight.

I have a proposal:

I propose that we select a "champion" -- a real radical libertarian -- who is utterly fearless and willing to go to the bitter end to put into the forefront this heinous injustice of judicial narcissism, raw exercise of judicial power, and abridgement of the First Amendment. That person needs to be someone from this forum; a person we all know and trust; who will accurately, coherently, and artfully report the results of that testing of the limits of judicial authority. They also need to have some extra time on their hands because as I remember, contempt of court aint a bailable offense. This person needs to be argumentative in the extreme so he (...or she...) can sufficiently agitate the judge to get an adequate test of the jurist's forbearance. He (...or she...) can travel to the nearest court (...preferably a Federal one...) and try the presiding judge with overbearing and impudent disregard for the office and person of the court; then gage the results (...if any---my guess is that there will be some…).

I am honored to be the first to be willing to contribute up to $10.00 smackaroos American to the TGO Benevolence Fund for Jailed Members. Having said all this, I open the floor to take nominations for this fearless individual who stands among us within the TGO Community.

Now, all we need to do is to tally the results and appoint a Treasurer to distribute the collected monies.

Waiting to contribute and excited to hear who the champion will be.

(...By the way, I have excused myself from this competition. "If nominated, I will not run; if drafted, I will not serve!!...).

Kind regards (...with money in hand...)

Radical Libertarian,

Leroy

I love how people will take a snippet of information - or statements against something - and let their imagination run wild with them. Pointing out that something that is being done is not founded in The Constitution of The United States does not equate to said person being ready to storm the castle walls for change.

If I were to believe that you were not just being facetious, you forget about the part where the fox is guarding the hen-house. It would take an awful lot of money and power to change things. Absent that, it would take a large portion of the population to be fed-up with the system and over-throw it.

I find it comical how some on this forum, (actually, the country really), decry assaults on the 2nd Amendment but not assaults on the others.

[MCSCOTT]

If the court can remove one's 1st Amendment rights regarding a word on a shirt, then what's stopping the court from removing your other rights as he sees fit?

I thought that removing a person's rights is exactly what a judge is suppose to be doing.

[Guest Ae-35]

I once got 2 weeks in jail for calling my x-wife's lawyer "Fat Ass" !!! Didn't know she was the judge's favorite. That hind-end WAS over " Axe-handle" WIDE !!!!