Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and nudism
jqw14, I would like to ask which short-term (few minutes) gathering of only 100 people, which does not include yelling demonstrators nor elements of a loud rock concert, truly does disrupt local life and privacy? Besides, I don't believe the residencial neighbourhood in question would be such where there is considerable disturbance to any regular life. Sirene of an ambulance or police car does disturb if lasting longer, few instructions through a bullhorn or shouted out not - as it is not inside anyone's house. I consider city as public entity has no right to prevent artistic installations of short term that do not include illegal or harmful elements (violence, pornography or extensive noise) and take place on public soil - or on private with permission. Private grounds are another story, that is a matter of property owner to decide according to his/her liking without further elaboration or reasoning.
TravelNudie
Without reading both arguments and hearing the whole truth, I have to come out on the city's side on this one. I've been fortunate enough to be allowed to participate in one of Tunick's "installations", (the one in Miami, at the Sagamore Hotel). No matter how well they're run, if the owner's of the hotel had not cleared it our of most visitors, the place would have been a huge cluster-f*ck. As a home-owner in a residential district, I would not have minded the photo shoot itself, but I certainly would not have wanted all the attendant BS that comes along wiht it: Increased police attendance, media vehicles and personnel all over trampling yards and clogging streets, porta-potties in your front yard... the general disturbance would have my dogs going insane. If they had denied the work based on freedom of expression or nudity-related reasons, I'd be pissed, but since the argument seems to be only partially nudity related, and more about infringing on the rights of the innocent homeowners, and their own privacy rights, I tend to agree.
An interesting article involving a court case ruled over by Obama's new Supreme court justice nomineeand it involvesnudism. https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-banned-artists-nude-photo-shoot-see-why/
I assume you are blaming United States President Obama for a case that happened many, many years ago? That makes sense.
An interesting article involving a court case ruled over by Obama's new Supreme court justice nomineeand it involvesnudism. https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-banned-artists-nude-photo-shoot-see-why/
I assume you are blaming United States President Obama for a case that happened many, many years ago? That makes sense.
I don't see blame being posted, just a commentary on the case. I would not have liked an event like that in my neighborhood when I lived in town due to traffic congestion and having lots of people tramping through my yard. The issue is not nudity, but personal property rights and I have to agree with the city.
Linda, btw, glad to see you back in forum.
Thomas
I assume you are blaming United States President Obama for a case that happened many, many years ago? That makes sense.
Glad to see you back, Linda !
In some ways, it does, yet it others it does not.
It's a *little* telling about this President's pick, but is ONLY an isolated incident.
Whether or not I personally agree with what happened in this incident ten years ago, it does seem opposite to what I'd expect from a "liberal."
Then again, people and the way they think is seldom black and white. Though I may not agree with the decision in this case, it serves to suggest that this judge is less a party line only liberal, willing to consider other criterea. That much I respect.
If you actually read the NYT article linked to in the blog, it points out that Sotomayor was one of three judges asked to decide -- in eight hours -- whether to enjoin the city from interfering with Tunick's shoot. The three-judge panel simply decided that eight hours was not enough time to give the issues their due, so they lifted the injunction and had the parties file fully formed arguments so the court reach a fully formed answer.
Eventually another three-judge panel, who heard full arguments, agreed with Tunick's position: https://openjurist.org/228/f3d/135/spencer-tunick-v-howard-safir-city-of-new-york
All Sotomayor (and her two colleagues) didreally was acknowledge that the First Amendment rights implicatedwarranted more than aflip response. Maintaining the status quo until an issue can be fully argued says little about Sotomayor's politics, and it is rather straightfoward judging.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!