PDA

View Full Version : Tradition



BikerRN
05-04-2010, 03:27 AM
I came across this bit of news and frankly I find myself agreeing with the more liberal members of the court on this issue. Tradition and symbolism does have it's place in society.


Supreme Court: Please Use Side DoorUpdated: 12 hours 36 minutes ago
Print Text Size E-mail More
Michelle Ruiz
Contributor

AOL News (May 3) -- Citing security concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court will close its main entrance to the public beginning Tuesday, directing visitors to a side entryway. The decision has sparked dissent from two justices.

The high court is shuttering its front doors at the recommendation of two independent security studies conducted in 2001 and 2009, according to a statement from the court. The release said the new entrance "provides a secure, reinforced area to screen for weapons, explosives and chemical and biological hazards."

Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images
The Supreme Court will shutter its front entrance to the public on Tuesday.
Although visitors will still be able to exit through the historic front entrance, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer expressed their disappointment over the change in a statement entered into the court's journal today. They justices said visitors to the Supreme Court, including parties whose cases are heard there and the attorneys who argue them, will be deprived of the experience of climbing the 44 marble steps to the main entrance.

"To many members of the public, this court's main entrance and front steps are not only a means to, but also a metaphor for, access to the court itself," Breyer wrote in the statement.

Though not a formal dissent, the statement from Breyer and Ginsburg was entered before Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Breyer's memorandum said no other Supreme Court in the world has closed its front doors to the public, including those in countries that face serious security threats, like Israel. Breyer acknowledged security threats to the U.S. court, but said he and Ginsburg do not believe closing the main entrance is the solution.

"Potential security threats will exist regardless of which entrance we use," he wrote. "It is important not to undervalue the symbolic and historic importance of allowing visitors to enter the court after walking up ... the famed front steps."

Breyer said he remains hopeful that the "dissipation" of the security risks or a congressional appropriation will allow the main entrance to be reopened in the future.

Biker

Patti
05-04-2010, 05:37 PM
I'm all for security, so I don't have a problem with it.

OMEGA2669
05-04-2010, 05:55 PM
I can understand why they would want it to be secure. But I also think that taking away a tradition or experience in the name of security is right.

A question I must ask though... why can't they have this screening through the main entrance?

Az Vet
06-01-2010, 10:35 PM
They justices said visitors to the Supreme Court, including parties whose cases are heard there and the attorneys who argue them, will be deprived of the experience of climbing the 44 marble steps to the main entrance.

Do the justices have to climb the same 44 steps? No wonder the old dude retired.

OMEGA2669
06-01-2010, 10:40 PM
I believe I meant taking away the tradition isn't right...

farronwolf
06-02-2010, 09:27 AM
If it were a privately owned building, I say they should do whatever they want, but the fact that it is a public building, then they should find a solution to let people use the main entrance like has been done all along.

Yea, security is a concern, why not just ban everyone from entering the building all together. Not. Are the justices worried about the building being damaged or damage to the justices themselves. If it is the latter of the two, I say piss on them, their lives are no more valuable than any other citizen in this country.