Discussion: Dem Rep. Will Appeal Decision To Remove Constituent Painting Of Animal Cops

Freedom of speech everywhere, except in the halls of Congress.

Insider trading illegal, expect for Congress people.

Got it. Any other double standard I should know of?

7 Likes

Same with guns.

4 Likes

Fuckin’ hypocrites…

5 Likes

A GW Bush appointee to the bench in 2001.

But here’s his real qualification:

“From September 1995 until leaving in March 1997, Bates worked as Deputy Independent Counsel for Kenneth Starr and the Independent Counsel’s office during the investigation into President Bill Clinton.”

– Wikipedia

Yeah, I totally trust that guy.

Edit: His application of “government speech” to this exhibition is something Gorsuch would like. 'Nuff said.

5 Likes

Does the judge have the facts of the case correct? It sounds as if the picture was chosen by some kind of a judging panel, not directly by the member of congress. And there’s no question that there was content-based discrimination, applied under pressure. (I think the real problem here is that the judge doesn’t want to make an official finding the the architect of the capitol has committed an unlawful act, because that would likely trigger all kinds of other mess. Yeah, I know that’s not why judges should make particular rulings)

1 Like

Double standards are prohibited, except where allowed.

2 Likes

It’s well established law. You can find all the details under the HFMFU legislation.
(Formally know as the Hooray For Me Fuck You legislation)

2 Likes

People keep coming up to me and saying that this artist is being paid–that’s right–he’s a paid artist–to do a portrait of Sessions.
Well played, Mr. Soros…

I got one for ya
Trump claims legal immunity. But there’s evidence he asked the Russians (ON TAPE MIND YOU) to hack the election. See the last paragraph of this article (make sure you are sitting down first):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia.
edit
In my non-lawyers way of looking at things I read in the Constitution (specifically article 3 section 3) it would take 2 witnesses to an overt act to convict someone of…treason. How about if that very act is on tape? Would any president or potential president be so stupid to do such a thing as putting on tape something that could be construed as…Oh I don’t know…treason? And then I remembered my college years and one Richard Milhous Nixon…

1 Like

So is took Duncan Hunter 6 months to get upset. The art work hangs for 12 months and Pulphus’ work hung for 6 months before being upsetting. Does anyone else see grandstanding?

3 Likes

“There is little doubt that the removal of the painting was based on its viewpoint,” Bates wrote.

That should help with the appeal.

They have two winning points now. First, the painting, per the contest rules, was deemed suitable by a committee headed by the Capitol Architect and hung in the Capitol for months. Second, the painting was removed due to “its viewpoint,” which couldn’t be a clearer admission of a First Amendment violation.

@mattshuham , why are you calling this the “animal cops” painting when it also shows a protestor as an animal and shows a cop as a human? On a second matter, your description of the work as “a painting of police brutality,” I will judge it a difference of interpretation rather than an outright mislabeling. I don’t see any police brutality in the painting. Instead, I see references to, but no depiction of, Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson. The references provide context for the message of the painting. YMMV. I will further note that Michael Brown’s killing is one where the concern people had was not one of police brutality, but rather one of how quickly police turn to lethal force when dealing with black males – even unarmed males presenting no immediate danger to the police or public. I’m sure some (many?) people will give me a “you crazy?” look for not seeing brutality in multiple gunshots, but I see most police shootings as falling in a different category.

1 Like

Good gravy.

This is what a Dem. Rep. on Congress is focusing on?

Really?

On the other hand, who was that asshat Congressman who told the cafeteria to rename french fries to ‘Freedom Fries’ when France wouldn’t help our bogus war that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney drummed up?

As long as we’re removing offensive artwork from the Capitol, someone should haul away all the statues of slave owners from the Capitol rotunda. Should clear out a lot of room.

I don’t know. Do you?

Now these know-nothing R’s are censoring art. The painting was judged and deemed good enough for this exhibition. The young artist and the painting got a great deal of attention he & the painting probably would not have otherwise gotten if these dumb, arrogant R’s hadn’t kept removing the painting from the exhibition. They just never learn.

Why doesn’t congressman Hunter complain about the Simpsons? Just take a look at Chief Wiggam’s very porcine looking features.

I thought we were concerned about millions loosing healthcare, and millions being deported, destruction of the EPA and its effect on the environment, fairness in Tax laws, voting rights, etc.
Who cares about a picture hanging on a wall. Get ypur shit together Democrats.

2 Likes

I realize this is a big issue for the artist, but it’s not the only constitutional right being desecrated daily on Capitol Hill.