Replies

“A judge doesn’t support either side,” he said. “A judge is objective and tries to make sure everyone has an opportunity to have a fair hearing, and it was a situation where it was just in violation of the law,”

Which law? Why don't judges cite the law?
(Or, I suppose that the journalists could just not be reporting or asking those questions.)

The judge said his ruling is based on Supreme Court case law in which a judge can prohibit symbolic political expression in courtrooms, even if it’s not disruptive.

Ah, so not actually a law.
And, apparently, it also implies that political speech is exempted from the prohibition on laws constraining speech — well, I guess that's been explicitly said by the supreme court before. (Link:We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.)