It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Supreme Court does use a somewhat more precise rule, called the “Miller test“, to establish if something is obscene and hence doesn’t merit protection under the First Amendment:
whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
The judge is the final say in the courtroom of course, you can appeal or ask for another judge, but regardless it is considered their courtroom and always has.
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
That is where appeals, change of venue or what have you comes into play. As far as the courtroom goes though the judge has the say. They would not have placed judges in the spot of making those decisions if they were not used or needed.
Raist
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
There is a dress code set forth by the court for being present there. Why is that difficult to understand?
I would defend the same had someone worn a T-shirt with a cross or whatever on it. If it is not the appropriate attire, it should not be worn. I have no problem with someone who can only afford a T-shirt wearing it as long as it is a blank piece of cloth.
Raist
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
Where did it say she got put in jail?
Please stick to facts. She just got kicked off the jury not thrown in jail. Again it is a dress code rule set forth not an opinion.
Raist
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Wow man read the thread. There are multiple stories here of how Judges threaten people with JAIL for not following dress codes.
Like that guy who had baggy pants and was forced to get his tattoos REMOVED????
Originally posted by muzzleflash
A courtroom is not his room, its OUR room. It's the PEOPLE's property. And if this courtroom is NOT people's property, than I refuse to enter it as it is a private property of someone I do not know.
Originally posted by mattifikation
Unfortunately, some people have come to the ridiculous conclusion that freedom can only be achieved by anarchy and therefor have no respect for the law.