The Supreme Court justices have voted to end one of the most important symbols of American justice: the open doors of justice at the Supreme Court building. Visitors have always entered through the massive doors which represented the access of citizens to our legal system. In yet another case of security trumping all other considerations, the justices voted to close the doors to citizens (and to use new doors located in a more secure location).
Only Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected to the move and issued a statement condemning the decision. In a disappointing move, Justices Stevens and Sotomayor decided not to join their liberal colleagues to speaking out against the move. There is less surprise with justices who routinely yield to security demands in cases, but only these two justices on the left of the Court spoke out to oppose the move.
Breyer wrote
“While I recognize the reasons for this change, on balance I do not believe they justify it. I think the change is unfortunate, and I write in the hope that the public will one day in the future be able to enter the Court’s Great Hall after passing under the famous words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ . . . Writers and artists regularly use the steps to represent the ideal that anyone in this country may obtain meaningful justice through application to this Court. . . . I thus remain hopeful that, sometime in the future, technological advances, a Congressional appropriation, or the dissipation of the current security risks will enable us to restore the Supreme Court’s main entrance as a symbol of dignified openness and meaningful access to equal justice under law.”
The design of Cass Gilbert emphasized the entrance as the central visual element. It will now become largely decorative. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once ordered the doors shut in a ridiculous over-reaction to a protest outside — and received overwhelming criticism for the act. Now, citizens will be barred entirely from entering through the doors. For civil libertarians the doors now represent a symbol of a different kind — showing how even the Supreme Court is compromising important traditions to accommodate security demands. There is little evidence of balancing in such decisions and only two justices were willing to fight to preserve a defining element of this iconic structure.
For the story, click here.
Buckeye,
Yes; however he did not spawn the TSA and other global-wide insecrutiy nonsense.
FFLEO
Timothy McVeigh
mespo
As with the Bible, we can always find a quote to make our points – sometimes points in direct opposition to each other! Here are a couple of quotes I have come to wish had never been recorded:
“What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. “
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, 1787
and
“There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious. “
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788
But they are there, whether people will misuse them or not. Here is another from TJ which was in reference to slavery, but sounds somewhat like our current dilemma with freedom of movement vs security of the populace.
“We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Holmes, Apr 22, 1820
Aside from Ginsburg, what do the rest of the justices have under those robes??
mahtso:
“Is entering through the front door an essential liberty?”
************
Having the choice to do so with open access to your government certainly qualifies, but even if it didn’t, it is an essential dignity of a free people.
truth is not always pretty but let’s not be hypocrits…there has been a widening backdoor and narrower front door to this legal system for a long time…hate to say it but metaphorically this act speaks more truth about the ‘access’ to justice currently available in this Country.
Security: the catch-all justification for expansions of state power.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Is entering through the front door an essential liberty?
Second St NE
Them cave-dwellin’ furin terrists ov’ yunner sumwers is a’ winnin’ the globbel wahr a’gin us a bit more ever day.
theys dun gots them hi n’ mity jusstishes in them purley white halls a runnin’ ‘round like scared litt’l greased piggies in a backwoods redneckin’ rodeo…
The fearful make me sick whining about security theater instead of thinking what constitutes actual security.
The public makes me sick. Whining about these clearly needed security measures.
Everyone is a potential criminal and should be tracked through biometric id’s and eventually an “on-board” bracelet or chip so those beyond reproach in government can monitor and track all of the potential criminals out there. I mean, it is a matter of our safety, right? Whose not for safety?
The one good thing that came out of 9/11 is that we have finally gotten rid of the ridiculous notion in this country that members of the citizenry are innocent until proven guilty. It’s just too onerous as a philosophy and unworkable for the men and women in law enforcement who are trying to get these pukes of the street. Let’s help ’em out…repeal the Bill of Rights all together. What a pain in the a@#.
Let’s not only close the front door, let’s just close the whole damn place down.
{Comments meant to be tongue-in-cheek]
The Supreme Court has an underground garage entered from Second Street SE. The entrance is guarded. It has one of those things that rise out of the ground to block unauthorized vehicles. The Justices enter the part of the building with their Chambers, Conference Room, and Courtroom, from the garage. I am pretty sure the Chief has a car and driver.
Vacancies in the Supreme Court are filled by the President, who nominates and the Senate, which confirms.
Buckeye:
“If it could be made as secure as another entrance has been, then that would be fine. Until or unless it can be, I would not want to risk the lives of the Supreme Court justices -just as I would not want to risk the life of the President or Vice President which entails traffic blocks (which were greatly disparaged when first placed, and are now an accepted necessity).’
**********************
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
~Benjamin Franklin
I would assume the justices enter by the secured entrance. I hope so, anyway.
I’m less concerned about the justices carting in an explosive device than I am about the public’s ability to do so.
I forgot to ask. If all 9 justices were killed or injured so badly they couldn’t proceed, who (or what) would take over? Or would all procedures end at the next lower court?
Or
You could build an alternate entrance for the Justices instead of the public.
Proper security is attainable in more ways than one.
But by all means, let’s sacrifice another symbol of democracy when the simplest solution is to secure nine people instead of securing all of the public.
As a church is only a symbol and not the real Church, which is all the worshipers; so the building’s entrance is only a symbol of the law of the land.
If it could be made as secure as another entrance has been, then that would be fine. Until or unless it can be, I would not want to risk the lives of the Supreme Court justices – just as I would not want to risk the life of the President or Vice President which entails traffic blocks (which were greatly disparaged when first placed, and are now an accepted necessity).
Perfection should be a goal, but not to the abandonment of the possible.
Hear, hear! Second to mespo!
Only a great people deserve a great entrance. The small ones, motivated by fear, deserve the small entrance.
Not only are the doors closing here,the governor may be rolling up the steps:
Gov. Christie may have picked a fight he’s ‘almost certain to lose’ with N.J. Supreme Court nominee
By Tom Moran/ The Star-Ledger
May 04, 2010, 7:00AM
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2010/05/gov_christies_may_have_picked.html