NationStates Jolt Archive

If you want to hear the Vice President speak in public then you should be prepared to sign a pledge to vote for Bush, otherwise you will be denied tickets.

At least, that's what's happening in Rio Rancho, NM, for Cheney's appearance today. According to the Caspar Star Tribune, Democrats who tried to pick up their tickets were required to sign the pledge, as well as give their driver's license numbers and disclose if they associate with "veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups."

Though it is common for screening measures to be employed when high-ranking officials speek in public, this is the first time a party loyalty oath has been a pre-requisite for listening to what our elected officials have to say. Is anybody else completely unsurprised that this didn't make any of the network news channels? Yeah, sure it's a liberal media. Right. That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.

link: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

Loyalty oath? Where's Major ___ de Coverley when you need him?

"Gimme eat!"

...

"Give everybody eat!"


Pretty soon we'll be buying eggs for seven cents each and selling them for five cents each and still making a profit.

Who would want to listen to him anyways? I like politics, but I wouldn't go so far as to listen to some speech in person. I'd rather watch the recorded two days afterwards. He's evil anyways, Mr. Vice President. Pure evil. Like Bush, hate Cheney.

Loyalty oath? Where's Major ___ de Coverley when you need him?

"Gimme eat!"

...

"Give everybody eat!"


Pretty soon we'll be buying eggs for seven cents each and selling them for five cents each and still making a profit.


Yay! Catch-22!


That is ridiculous. It should be against the law to do that.

Yay! Catch-22!


That is ridiculous. It should be against the law to do that.


Hey the Repuplican Party is their private mens' club. I am all for it, as it will doubtless help some of their sheep break free to realize this.

Required Loyalty Oath?

I'm sure some one once told me that the USA was a free country.. I guess they were wrong! O.o

but surely it can't be a legal oath...how would they ever enforce that?
PEOPLE MUST KNOW....cause that is pretty creepy

I'm not familiar with the legislation, however the key questions in determining legal enforcability are:

i Can a person lawfully agree to contract out their vote?

ii Is such an agreement binding generally?

iii Is such an agreement binding when it is given in return for gain (ie the tickets)?

iv Is is lawful to offer someone goods/services/cash/special consideration/s in return for their agreeing to contract out their vote?

v If not can a person be legally obliged to adhere to an unlawful agreement?

vi Would such an adherence constitute a breach of law?

vii Can a person be legally required to breach law?

I would suggest that these answers questions is 'no'. Although I must qualify that I really am not familiar with the relevent legislation I doubt very much that the 'oaths' referred are legally binding, and in fact if it is not illegal to ask for such an oath in return for furnishing the oath-giver with some gain or other, it should be.....

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this strikes at the very heart of the concept of democracy. How can you tell a person that they can only come and listen to your views if you promise to vote for you?

PS: All politicians are tools. Except for the Monster Raving Loony party. :cool:

I'm not familiar with the legislation, however the key questions in determining legal enforcability are:

i Can a person lawfully agree to contract out their vote?

I don't know the exact legal code, but I believe the answer to this is no. You cannot give away your vote, nor can you sell it. Anyone offering you money to vote a certain way is breaking the law.

v If not can a person be legally obliged to adhere to an unlawful agreement?

No. If a contract is deemed unlawful, the person cannot be legally obliged to adhere to it.

This "oath" would be completely legally unenforcable. This is much like the oaths that different groups had out that ask you to pledge not to drink on certain nights or whatever. You sign it, they feel good, whoopteedo. However, it does mean that anyone who is not going to vote for Bush has to say that they will just to get access to the current vice president's speech, thus having to lie. This is absolutely outrageous and whoever instituted it should be shot.

Well not really.

It just furthers my views on Kerry.

Cheney can't deal with disruption or dicenting views. Kerry seems to be handling them just fine....

That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.

Oops, wrong.

Archives Denies Report That Berger Is in the Clear

A senior spokeswoman for the National Archives denied a report Friday morning that Archives officials have cleared former Kerry-Edwards campaign adviser Sandy Berger on charges that he withheld documents from the 9/11 Commission.

"In spite of what the Wall Street Journal said, the National Archives really isn't commenting on this case because it's under investigation," Susan Cooper, chief spokeswoman for the Archives.

The Journal reported in Friday editions:
"Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. ... The conclusion by Archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission."

The Journal report was picked up by ABC Radio network news, which further misreported the story by saying that the Justice Department had cleared Sandy Berger of all charges.

But Ms. Cooper disputed the claim that she or any other Archives official had said any such thing.

"We really have had nothing to say and will continue to have nothing to say about the particulars of the [Berger] case," Cooper said. "I gather that there's somebody else in the food chain that has been talking about the case but it's not at the Archives."

In keeping with her no-comment policy, the Archives chief spokeswoman declined to confirm an earlier Washington Post report that Berger had destroyed four of the six copies of the Millennium Plot After Action Review stored in Archives files.

Cooper also declined to say whether draft copies of the document with original notes in the margins were among the papers Berger's lawyer Lanny Breuer said his client had "discarded."

Not knowing the nature of the pledge I cannot really comment specifically. If, as I suspect is the case, the pledge only refered to endorsing Bush/Cheney (not voting for them) and only applied to the meeting (which may have been the case) then I have no problems with it - it is basically a pledge to not cause disruption during the meeting, no big deal.

Um...sounds like a violation of the first amendment to me! Except instead of not letting someone speak, they are limiting who can hear what someone has to say!

Bush just lost any respect I ever had for him (none), as well as Cheney...

"For Saturday's event, Foley, a New Mexico legislator, said the Cheney campaign didn't want supporters denied places that might be taken by detractors."

I think this is a key line from the article. Everyone, no matter if they are a supporter or detractor should be able to attend a public meeting. It's not like it was a Republican party event, Cheney was simply speaking. A

Kerry allows detractors to his meetings, yet Cheney's too scared?

well, if they don't vote for bush, do they get in trouble for violating a contract? all ballots are supposed to be secret, so how would they know?

that's some serious bullshit right there.
somebody ought to... :mp5: grr.. i can't say it or the government would have my family killed! :rolleyes:
:sniper:

Not knowing the nature of the pledge I cannot really comment specifically. If, as I suspect is the case, the pledge only refered to endorsing Bush/Cheney (not voting for them) and only applied to the meeting (which may have been the case) then I have no problems with it - it is basically a pledge to not cause disruption during the meeting, no big deal.

No, it is no such thing. A person who endorses them can cause disruption by shouting out "hell yeah" and things like that. A person who does not endorse them can sit there with their mouth shut and just listen. And the word endorse is active, so it has nothing to do with saying you won't cause disruption.

Besides, even if they wanted to bring in signs or whatever, if you are not harming anyone, you should not be kept out of the speech. Period.

If you want to hear the Vice President speak in public then you should be prepared to sign a pledge to vote for Bush, otherwise you will be denied tickets.

At least, that's what's happening in Rio Rancho, NM, for Cheney's appearance today. According to the Caspar Star Tribune, Democrats who tried to pick up their tickets were required to sign the pledge, as well as give their driver's license numbers and disclose if they associate with "veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups."

Though it is common for screening measures to be employed when high-ranking officials speek in public, this is the first time a party loyalty oath has been a pre-requisite for listening to what our elected officials have to say. Is anybody else completely unsurprised that this didn't make any of the network news channels? Yeah, sure it's a liberal media. Right. That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.

link: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt
Its not enforceable though. You can pledge to vote for Bush, but then still vote for the other guy. Cause the ballots are secret.
They're basing it off your personal word of honor, and well, we all know that in America, a person's word ain't worth shit.

Its not enforceable though. You can pledge to vote for Bush, but then still vote for the other guy. Cause the ballots are secret.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but the question I have is, is this even legal to do? I know it's not in Canada.

At least, that's what's happening in Rio Rancho, NM, for Cheney's appearance today.
Uh. I live in NM... None of us here even *like* Bush...

Wow, and I thought that Bush was the only one on the ticket that was a moron.

I am guessing it was an attempt to ensure the person speaking actually got to speak and the people who went to listen to the person scheduled to speak got to here them speak.
You talk of the right to freedom of speech but that also includes allowing others to speak in their own forum. Too many of these speeches get hijacked by extremists who try and drown out the person speaking by shouting abuse. That, to me, is a greater threat to freedom of speech seeing as the people attending would, for the most part, be doing so to here a certain person speak and not listen to overzealous dissenters screaming abuse.
Whether the pledges is legal or not, I have no idea but I think it is fairly evident why it was done. Not that it would have stopped dissenters entering but it may have turned a few of them away.

A public appearance is hardly a person's own forum, where they should be free from dissention.

A public appearance is hardly a person's own forum, where they should be free from dissention.

They were assembling to here this person speak, correct? Therefore they should have the right to hear that person speak. If dissenters want to ask questions of the speaker after they have delivered their speech then thats fine. But drowning out a speaker is not exercising freedom of speech it is an example of poor manners and ignorance.

They were assembling to here this person speak, correct? Therefore they should have the right to hear that person speak. If dissenters want to ask questions of the speaker after they have delivered their speech then thats fine. But drowning out a speaker is not exercising freedom of speech it is an example of poor manners and ignorance.

I agree, but simply because a person has an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean they will drown out the speaker. And, likewise, simply because a person agrees with the speaker doesn't mean they will be quiet. Plenty of speakers have been interrupted by raucous applause.

Conventions and speeches are usually just filed with brown nosing, back patter anyways. I would actually like to see all speeches take place where most of the audience is actually members of the opposite party. But this takes the cake. Actually requiring people to be brown nosing, back patters.
:rolleyes:

That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.Oops, wrong.

perhaps i wasn't clear enough with my sarcasm there. after days of hearing about Berger on the front page and in the leading story of the nightly news, I didn't see a single story on Berger being cleared on any of the three network newscasts i watch. I had to hunt through the paper to find the story. FoxNews certainly didn't run the story, nor did CNN. it took them quite a while to mention it, which i guess we should all have expected since the Berger case was going on for a year before the media suddenly decided it was time to make a stink about it.

sorry, but this "liberal media" crap just makes me laugh out loud.

I agree, but simply because a person has an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean they will drown out the speaker. And, likewise, simply because a person agrees with the speaker doesn't mean they will be quiet. Plenty of speakers have been interrupted by raucous applause.

I am not saying they would. I did say that the reason for the requirement to sign a pledge was probably to ward off dissenters who were intent on causing disruption to the speech. How that would have succeeded is beyond me because, as has been stated, you can vote for whoever you like as the ballots are anonymous.
I am sure you can see the difference between raucous applause and screaming abuse so I won't go into that

They were assembling to here this person speak, correct? Therefore they should have the right to hear that person speak. If dissenters want to ask questions of the speaker after they have delivered their speech then thats fine. But drowning out a speaker is not exercising freedom of speech it is an example of poor manners and ignorance.
oh yes it is SO easy for a single person to completely drown out a person on a mic, or some one trained for public speaking, YOU CANT DO IT

and its not threatening their freedom of speach, removing said dissenter because their disruption is a blatant violation of that freedom, being rude is no reason to deny them freedom of speach or accuse them of denying it of some one else

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but the question I have is, is this even legal to do? I know it's not in Canada.
oh im positive its illegal, but the republicans are egotistical, self righteous and blind to their own wrong doings, so unless some one challenges it in court they cant keep doing it, and even if they do challenge it in court the republicans will sit around chanting their "activist judges" mantra and whining about the judicial branch making laws and blah blah blah then start whining about liberal media for good measure

They were assembling to here this person speak, correct? Therefore they should have the right to hear that person speak. If dissenters want to ask questions of the speaker after they have delivered their speech then thats fine. But drowning out a speaker is not exercising freedom of speech it is an example of poor manners and ignorance.
If someone is being particularly distracting, they can remove them. It's no reason to keep someone out to begin with.

To me, this sounds like vote buying
Except the currency they're offering has no value

perhaps i wasn't clear enough with my sarcasm there. after days of hearing about Berger on the front page and in the leading story of the nightly news, I didn't see a single story on Berger being cleared on any of the three network newscasts i watch. I had to hunt through the paper to find the story. FoxNews certainly didn't run the story, nor did CNN. it took them quite a while to mention it, which i guess we should all have expected since the Berger case was going on for a year before the media suddenly decided it was time to make a stink about it.

sorry, but this "liberal media" crap just makes me laugh out loud.The problem with this sort of analysis is that Berger han't been cleared. The (untrue) story that Berger was cleared came from that bastion of Liberalism which brought the Berger incident to media attention in the first place, The Wall Street Journal. All the reporting that Berger was cleared was based upon the story in The Wall Street Journal which may have been technically accurate (and even that's not certain) while providing a false impression. If the major networks had reported Berger cleared of charges it would have been an example of shoddy journalism, not bias and the lack of coverage of the no-so-story means nothing.

I don't know the exact legal code, but I believe the answer to this is no. You cannot give away your vote, nor can you sell it. Anyone offering you money to vote a certain way is breaking the law.
And surely "money" must be termed as "goods or services" under the law, right? And theres certainly a case for arguing that hearing Cheney speak is a "service" (although not an especially good one)...

Couldn't someone hold a party where everyone was required to pledge their vote before entering, and then literally give cash to every guest who entered? Isn't this a really appallingly blatent loophole in vote-buying law?

No, it is no such thing. A person who endorses them can cause disruption by shouting out "hell yeah" and things like that. A person who does not endorse them can sit there with their mouth shut and just listen. And the word endorse is active, so it has nothing to do with saying you won't cause disruption.

Besides, even if they wanted to bring in signs or whatever, if you are not harming anyone, you should not be kept out of the speech. Period.

The operative word you missing in my post is "basically". This does not imply an exact or one-to-one corespondance to a pledge not to disrupt. What "it is basically a pledge not to cause disruption" does mean is that the intented effect of the pledge (if it meets the criteria I set) is at it's heart the same as a pledge not to disrupt.

As for "if you are not harming anyone, you should not be kept out of the speech. Period.", there is no period. If it is (1)a public speech (2) in a public venue (3) for a public audience, sure, and despite the fact that it hasn't been the law in the US for over 10 years I agree with the principal. But note the conditions, this right to access is not an absolute, and I suspect (but do not know) that none of those 3 conditions were met in this case and I see no evidence that all three were met. If the right of access to hear speech were an absolute, I would have the right to barge into your home in order to listen to your dinner conversation. Period.

The thing for me is that there is not enough information given to form a conclusive opinion. I can state conditions under which a pledge would bother me and conditions under which it wouldn't. Without that information I cannot render a definitive judgment on the pledge. I cannot be offended however by an event which requires so much speculation into the nature of the events not reported to rise to the level of being offensive.

The operative word you missing in my post is "basically". This does not imply an exact or one-to-one corespondance to a pledge not to disrupt. What "it is basically a pledge not to cause disruption" does mean is that the intented effect of the pledge (if it meets the criteria I set) is at it's heart the same as a pledge not to disrupt.

Unless the person who came up with it is a complete idiot, that is not the intended effect. The intended effect was most likely (a) to keep out people they don't like and (b) to bully people into thinking they have to vote for Bush. It's all a bunch of bull, really.

As for "if you are not harming anyone, you should not be kept out of the speech. Period.", there is no period. If it is (1)a public speech (2) in a public venue (3) for a public audience, sure, and despite the fact that it hasn't been the law in the US for over 10 years I agree with the principal.

It was the VP of the United States giving a public speech for a public audience, and I'm pretty sure it was a public audience. A person should not be kept out of a public speech by one of the highest ranking people in our government.

But note the conditions, this right to access is not an absolute, and I suspect (but do not know) that none of those 3 conditions were met in this case and I see no evidence that all three were met. If the right of access to hear speech were an absolute, I would have the right to barge into your home in order to listen to your dinner conversation. Period.

We're not talking about the dinner conversation of a regular joe-blow citizen. Nor are we talking about a citizen's private residence, where they are allowed to deny access to whoever they want. We are talking about a public figure giving a public speech. And not only is he a public figure, he is close to the executive head of our government and can (or at least should) give us an idea of what the hell they are doing and what they have planned.

If this was a Kerry rally, I'd say it was outrageous but allowable. However, Cheney is on the government payroll and was holding a public speech. He is therefore accountable to the American people, regardless of who they are voting for in the next election.

I can state conditions under which a pledge would bother me and conditions under which it wouldn't.

Suppose you wanted to go into the DMV and ask them a question about getting a title for your car. You do not plan to disrupt anything, you just want to ask your question. They ask you to sign a pledge that you will vote for the current tax commissioner before you walk in. Do you think that's ok?

Unless the person who came up with it is a complete idiot, that is not the intended effect. The intended effect was most likely (a) to keep out people they don't like and (b) to bully people into thinking they have to vote for Bush. It's all a bunch of bull, really. Vote? Where do you keep getting this "vote" thing from? If there was a requirement to vote for Bush in the pledge then this entire argument is moot, by my own criteria if there was a vote requirement then the pledge was not basically a pledge not to disrupt. If you have access to a copy of the text of the pledge we can resolve the issue, but none of the reporting I have seen gives me any reason to believe that there was a pledge to vote for Bush. As for the idiocy of the author, without knowing what the pledge said I cannot really make a judgement. It was the VP of the United States giving a public speech for a public audience, and I'm pretty sure it was a public audience. A person should not be kept out of a public speech by one of the highest ranking people in our government. Could you please tell me where this knowledge comes from? The impression I gathered from the article was that this was a speech for a private audience. From other reporting I am pretty sure this was a private speech for a private audience in a private forum. But I am open to the possibility that it met my 3 criteria, but there is no evidence from the article cited to conclude this and no other reporting I've seen on the event gives me any indication that it was a public speech to a public audience in a public forum. Please, if it met those criteria I would like to see evidence because that would mean terrible things are happening to freedom in the US. I cannot just assume it met the criteria, especially in light of the other reporting I have seen about the event.If this was a Kerry rally, I'd say it was outrageous but allowable. However, Cheney is on the government payroll and was holding a public speech. He is therefore accountable to the American people, regardless of who they are voting for in the next election.Well actually Kerry is a US Senator on the US payroll, but your point is valid. If Cheney was speaking in his role as VP then his speech is more public than that of a private individual, however if Cheney was speaking (as seems to me to be the case from the availible evidence) in his role as VP canidate then his speech is no more public than one of Kerry's as a canidate although both are more public than the speech of a private individual in the similar circumstances. But I see no evidence that Cheney was speaking in his role as VP instead of his role as VP canidate, if you have such evidence show it too me.Suppose you wanted to go into the DMV and ask them a question about getting a title for your car. You do not plan to disrupt anything, you just want to ask your question. They ask you to sign a pledge that you will vote for the current tax commissioner before you walk in. Do you think that's ok?certainly not. And I would be upset if a similar pledge were a condition of entry to such an event as the president's State of the Union Address. But I see no reason to believe that this event was anything other than a campaign rally for a limited audience. If you have the information please share it, but the article presented gives believe otherwise and no other reporting I have seen gives me any reason to believe otherwise.

I didn't read all the posts but did any of you realize that it is impossible for that oath to be legally binding as for it be legally binding they must know who you voted for. For this to happen they would have to Stalinize the voting proceedure by having you vote for Bush in front of someone.

Personally, if I were an American, on election day I would follow my heart and move to Alberta. :p

Viva Canada! Where everyone knows that our government is both currupt and inept! (anyone in need of sponsorship? lol)

I didn't read all the posts but did any of you realize that it is impossible for that oath to be legally binding as for it be legally binding they must know who you voted for. For this to happen they would have to Stalinize the voting proceedure by having you vote for Bush in front of someone.

Of course we realize that, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers us.

oh yes it is SO easy for a single person to completely drown out a person on a mic, or some one trained for public speaking, YOU CANT DO IT

and its not threatening their freedom of speach, removing said dissenter because their disruption is a blatant violation of that freedom, being rude is no reason to deny them freedom of speach or accuse them of denying it of some one else

No, a group of people who have the intention to shout down a speaker would quite easily achieve that goal.
So, if you paid money to go and watch Farenheit 9/11 and I got a group of 20 people to go in and scream abuse about Michael Moore throughout the film and drown the whole thing out, you would have no problem with that? Preventing people from listening to a speaker is a breach of freedom of speech for the speaker and a breach of the rights of those that wish to listen.

No, a group of people who have the intention to shout down a speaker would quite easily achieve that goal.
So, if you paid money to go and watch Farenheit 9/11 and I got a group of 20 people to go in and scream abuse about Michael Moore throughout the film and drown the whole thing out, you would have no problem with that? Preventing people from listening to a speaker is a breach of freedom of speech for the speaker and a breach of the rights of those that wish to listen.


And yet, these people are allowed in the movie theater, because they can simply be removed is such a thing happens...

And yet, these people are allowed in the movie theater, because they can simply be removed is such a thing happens...

Ah, but Chess Squares said their removal is denying them freedom of speech. He values the freedom of speech of people intent on disruption over the rights of people to hear a speaker they have gone to hear and the right of the speaker to freedom of speech.

I didn't read all the posts but did any of you realize that it is impossible for that oath to be legally binding as for it be legally binding they must know who you voted for. For this to happen they would have to Stalinize the voting proceedure by having you vote for Bush in front of someone.

Personally, if I were an American, on election day I would follow my heart and move to Alberta. :p

Viva Canada! Where everyone knows that our government is both currupt and inept! (anyone in need of sponsorship? lol)
well they could just go ahead and vote for them, give them ballots with the president option already filled in or something

That's pathetic. Anyone who is going is already gonna be a Bush supporter. Why block potential voters who are still unsure.

Personally, if I were an American, on election day I would follow my heart and move to Alberta.

Viva Canada! Where everyone knows that our government is both currupt and inept! (anyone in need of sponsorship? lol)
Yah run to Alberta where you can be pampered by our worthless american ass-kissing conservatives <_<

Vive Le Canada! If you're gonna do it, atleast do it the Canadian way. Sad but true. But the Conservatives are corrupt, inept, racist, sexist, hypocritical and generally worthless. The NDP is worthless and inept. The Bloc are just Liberals who want to seperate. We live in a sad sad country.

To me it's like this, 'support us and come hear the speech or dont support us and we will do nothing for you'. Just more evidence that there is no current President of the USA, but rather a President of 'whoever voted for Bush'. At least with Kerry everyone in the USA will have a President, Bush and co have made it clear that you are for them or against them, and if you are not the former they have no time for you unless you bother them, then it's all guns blazing.

You can wattle on about 'disrupters' from here to the next election, but the fact is such a pledge is only going to keep out those who are not willing to give their word unless they intend to keep it, so why not just have a 'I promise not to be a disruption' pledge? If such a pledge wont stop the people who might be a disruption, then why would the current pledge be any more effective? If neither pledge is effective, why have a pledge? Just how thick are we supposed to believe Bush's highly paid Election campaign advisors are?

To me it's like this, 'support us and come hear the speech or dont support us and we will do nothing for you'. Just more evidence that there is no current President of the USA, but rather a President of 'whoever voted for Bush'. At least with Kerry everyone in the USA will have a President, Bush and co have made it clear that you are for them or against them, and if you are not the former they have no time for you unless you bother them, then it's all guns blazing.

You can wattle on about 'disrupters' from here to the next election, but the fact is such a pledge is only going to keep out those who are not willing to give their word unless they intend to keep it, so why not just have a 'I promise not to be a disruption' pledge? If such a pledge wont stop the people who might be a disruption, then why would the current pledge be any more effective? If neither pledge is effective, why have a pledge? Just how thick are we supposed to believe Bush's highly paid Election campaign advisors are?


It obviously worked because people complained they were refused entry.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but the question I have is, is this even legal to do? I know it's not in Canada.
its perfectly legal.

oh im positive its illegal, but the republicans are egotistical, self righteous and blind to their own wrong doings, so unless some one challenges it in court they cant keep doing it, and even if they do challenge it in court the republicans will sit around chanting their "activist judges" mantra and whining about the judicial branch making laws and blah blah blah then start whining about liberal media for good measure
nah. its only illegal if its a taxpayer funded event.