Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Against Bush-Era Thought Police

President Bush's handlers were so touchy about getting the right audiences for his public speaking appearances that they not only rejected potential dissidents who might try to disrupt or derail his flow with a tricky question or critical comment, but turned people away based on the bumper stickers on their cars.

And the top federal court has effectively declared the handlers were well within their right to do so.

In fact, the Supreme Court this week declined to even hear the case of two Colorado residents, Leslie Weise and Alex Young, who were thrown out of a Bush event held in a private museum but paid for in part by taxpayers' money. The court did not say why it would not hear their case, which was an appeal of two previous federal court rulings that held there was no "clearly established" constitutional right preventing the individuals' ouster from the March 21, 2005 forum in Denver.

"No specific authority instructs this court (let alone a reasonable public official) how to treat the ejection of a silent attendee from an official speech based on the attendee’s protected expression outside the speech area,” wrote Judge Paul Kelly of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three members of the activist group Denver Progressives, Weise, Young and Karen Bauer had tickets to the event -- which was billed as a  Social Security forum (Bush was in the midst of trying to push through a form of privatization at the time) -- and had passed all the security checks to get in. But once inside they were asked to leave without explanation. The next day, according to their lawyer at the time, the three were told by the Secret Service it was the bumper sticker on their car, "No More Blood for Oil," that had triggered their ejection.

The White House said volunteers -- not staffers -- turned the three out. Nonetheless, spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters at the time that, "from what I was told, it was fairly obvious to them that (Weiss, Young and Bauer) had plans to disrupt the event ... it was a judgment call." Their lawyer flatly denied that they were there for any other reason than to listen to what the president had to say on Social Security.

Dissenting Judge William Holloway of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote passionately about the case's implications on the First Amendment-protected right to free speech.

“It is simply astounding that any member of the executive branch could have believed that our Constitution justified this egregious violation of plaintiff’s rights,” he wrote.

The majority on the Tenth Circuit said the case was similar to a 1996 federal ruling  in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Bush/Quayle campaign, which was holding a private campaign rally, had the right to deny entry to an individual wearing a button bearing the name of their opponent, Bill Clinton. But Holloway pointed out that the 1996 rally was a private event put on by the campaign. The Bush Social Security event was "official" and had been paid in part by public monies.

Holloway quoted the Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark First Amendment decision, New York Times v. Sullivan: “The right of an American citizen to criticize public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas for change is the central meaning of the First Amendment.”

Dissenting from the majority that chose not to hear the case, Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor appeared to agree with the spirit of what Holloway was saying. "I cannot see how reasonable public officials, or any staff or volunteers under their direction, could have viewed the bumper sticker as a permissible reason for depriving Weise and Young of access to the event,” wrote Justice Ginsburg.

Seems like a no-brainer, that rejecting people for what they "think" rather than what they "do"  or "say" would be unconstitutional. But it seems that mitigating factors, like the event venue being private and the perpetrators in this case being volunteers rather than paid staff, muddied the waters enough to prevent this case going further, for now.

Meanwhile, President Obama has yet to throw anyone out of his events for sporting the wrong bumper sticker on their ride. But he isn't immune from the urge to orchestrate. According to Politico, Obama's team had carefully screened the attendees for Wednesday's town hall meeting with the president on MTV. Potential audience members were asked for their name, phone numbers, hometowns, schools attending,  jobs, recent photos and "short description of your political views."

Obama's handlers insisted the request was all about making "the broadest, most diverse audience possible," but it's hard to imagine that a Tea Party advocate who might very well be driving a truck with a "NOBama" sticker on the back is going to be very welcome.

And if he showed up anyway, he might well be rejected -- with the court's blessing. Without more pushback -- perhaps, noted Ginsburg, another pending case against Bush officials by the two Coloradans may get a better hearing --  the tone set by the Bush White House, which left behind a string of cases in which he restricted free speech in order to control access and the message of his public appearances, seems destined to live on.

Photo: Edgygrrrl