Tens Of Teabaggers Get Shouted Down When Trying To Crash Immigration Rally At Supreme Court [VIDEO]

Politico reports:

Top immigration hardliners in Congress clashed with protesters outside of the Supreme Court on Monday, as justices took up President Barack Obama’s directive to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) lectured the protesters, who chanted “We want justice” and booed loudly while he tried to speak from a podium at the base of the court’s steps.

“Why are you all yelling?” said King, who was yelling into a microphone himself. “You want to be citizens of America? And conduct yourselves in a fashion where you try to shout down someone who is exercising their right to freedom of speech? Do I need to start reading the Constitution from the First Amendment?”

News conferences sponsored by the Tea Party and FreedomWorks also featured Reps. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), as well as other speakers who unsuccessfully tried to lead the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance and “America the Beautiful.” An effort to lead a singalong of the national anthem backfired when the singer forgot the lyrics midway through, drawing jeers.

Organizers for the pro-immigration protesters wore fluorescent vests to create a human chain around the hardliners’ press conference, a move that may have prevented a more direct confrontation. At one point, a FreedomWorks organizer accused the protesters of trying to unplug their speaker.

Gohmert was greeted with chants of “racist.” It was “ironic,” Gohmert said, that people come to the United States for better opportunities, “and yet once here, they want us to be like the country they came from, where they don’t enforce the law evenly across the board.”

  • Lumpy Gaga

    “Free speech means the guy with the most equipment gets heard!”

    — Shorter Steve King

    • Todd20036

      I have issues. I read that as:

      … the guy with the most equipment gets hard.

      • clay

        Sometimes the guys with the most equipment have difficulty getting fully hard.

      • Todd Elliott

        Oh Todd, I am in DC. I wish you could come here.

    • clay

      buys, “the guy who buys (or rents, or just has the most money) gets heard.”

  • Pollos Hermanos
  • Albert Ross

    “Why are you all exercising your first amendment rights?”

    • clay

      Goehmert and King are two who wanted Constitutional Rights limited to voters, not just citizens, but voters!

  • JIM W

    I agree this is important enough to keep repeating it. (humor)

  • This just in: Top immigration hardliners in Congress clashed with protesters outside of the Supreme Court on Monday, as justices took up President Barack Obama’s directive to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation

    • Kay

      They are criminal immigrants, not simply “undocumented”.

      • YakHerder

        What crimes have they committed? For the vast, vast majority, the answer is “no crimes.”

        • Kay

          For starters, entering the country illegally to begin with. On top of that, there is identity theft and illegal work.

          As long as they illegally remain in the country, they continue to break the law every minute of every day.

          All of them are criminals. Each and every one.

          • YakHerder

            Sorry, bold font is not an argument, and you are wrong. Being in the country without authorization is against the law, but it’s not a crime and does not make them criminals. (You can point me to the relevant part of Title 18 of the U.S. Code if you disagree.) Identity theft is a crime, but most unauthorized immigrants don’t commit criminal identity theft; just using a made-up social security number doesn’t count. Working without a work permit isn’t a crime either. Do some unauthorized immigrants commit crimes, abso-goddamn-lutely they do. But to say in bold font that all 11.3 million people are criminals just makes you look silly.

          • Kay

            It’s 8 USC, not 18 USC.

            8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien

            (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

            Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

            There are plenty of criminal laws not found in 18 USC. For example, tax evasion, and the National Firearms Act. Violating them can land you in a federal prison. It’s criminal, not simply civil penalties.

          • Kay

            On top of the other statute I mentioned, there are also ones like mandatory registration:

            8 USC 1302 – Registration of aliens

            “It shall be the duty of every alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted under section 1201(b) of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.”

            There are also the reporting requirements:

            (a) Individuals arriving other than by conveyanceExcept as otherwise authorized by the Secretary, individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft shall—

            (1) enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and

            (2) immediately—

            (A) report the arrival, and

            (B) present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection;

            to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point.

            (g) Criminal penalty

            In addition to being liable for a civil penalty under subsection (f) of this section, any individual who intentionally violates any provision of subsection (e) of this section is, upon conviction, liable for a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

            There’s also Unlawful Bringing of Aliens into United States (8 U.S.C. § 1323), Overstaying Duration of Stay (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) & (C)(i)), Willful Failure or Refusal to Depart (8 U.S.C. § 1253), driving without a license, driving without registration, etc.

            “just using a made-up social security number doesn’t count”

            Yes, it does. When they fill out the required I-9, they “attest, under penalty of perjury”. That’s a criminal act. They generally list themselves as US citizens.

            18 U.S. Code § 911 – Citizen of the United States

            “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

            That’s also a criminal act.

          • Kay

            I see my responses were deleted. I provided many laws, including failure to report, illegal entry, and claiming US citizenship.

          • Kay

            I see my responses were removed. I provided many laws, including failure to report, illegal entry, etc.

            You are right that working is not a criminal offence (although being an employer is), but uttering false documents (fake SSN cards) is, as is claiming that you are a US citizen (up to 3 years), which they typically do in addition to using the “made up social security number”. Both of these also happen when enrolling children in school.

            Working illegally is a deportable offence, however, as it leaves someone outside of status. The same is true for overstays. Failure to report (for anyone over 14) is criminal, and failure to report children (for the people under 14) is also criminal.

            Technically, this does mean that not all 11.3 million are criminals – minors under 14 often have not committed an offence yet. They are also not guilty of bypassing the immigration or border controls, as their parents did it. Once they turn 14, however, they are committing criminal acts.

            A few states will issue licenses to people who are in the country illegally (Washington, for example). In the rest of the states, they either drive without a license (generally criminal), or utter false documents to get them (criminal).

            Once removed, being out of status results in being barred from the country; re-entry is yet another law that many illegal immigrants break.

  • oikos
  • Bruno

    I can’t think of any 2 guys more deserving of having their mouths stapled shut as Looey Gomer and Steve King.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      ON each others asses.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Republican Centipede.

        • Stacey Peterson

          “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc203ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc203:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCommonGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc203………

      • Blake Jordan

        Include 2 or 3 more and it should be possible to make a circular, human centipede…

        • Queequeg

          Somewhat subhuman centipede.

        • Christopher

          A Republican Ouroboros!

        • vorpal

          They already do little else other than regurgitate each other’s shit. Will we even notice a difference?

    • shellback

      The correct spelling, I believe, is “Loony”.

    • Acronym Jim

      Loamy Goober?

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Did we all noticed the podium sign Garland “Obama’s Rubber Stamp”?

    He was a suggestion made by Republicans as a good candidate that Obama would never nominate – and then he did.

    At this point trolling the Republican’s is just too easy.

    • Cuberly
      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Huh ?? That doesn’t even make sense. WTF is wrong with him ?

        • Cuberly

          What’s wrong with him?

          Oh, my, where to start…..

          • peacfulseas inWA

            What’s right with him? A much shorter list.

          • Cuberly

            But talk about a task, YIKES!

            Mission impossible.

          • peacfulseas inWA

            Yes, finding anything right other than his politics, with the likes of him would be a mission impossible.

      • Acronym Jim

        From King’s Wiki page:

        “King was born on May 28, 1949, in Storm Lake, Iowa, the son of Mildred Lila (née Culler), a homemaker, and Emmett A. King, a state police dispatcher.[1] His father has Irish and German ancestry, and his mother has Welsh mixed with others going back to the colonial era.[1] King has also stated that he is Latino, although it has since been established that he is not.”

        Wow, he can’t even lie very well.

        • Chucktech

          What the fuck could he POSsibly think would serve his self interest (since that’s the only reason assholes like him would do anything) by claiming to be Latino in Iowa??

          • David Walker

            Since JFK said he was a jelly doughnut when he was in Berlin (Ich bin ein Berliner) (an honest mistake by a non-German-speaking president), perhaps the honorable gentleman from Iowa wants to be a taco but doesn’t know how to express it. Language and all.

          • Craig Howell

            Imagine the reaction to JFK’s rhetoric if some other German city had become a Cold War hot spot instead of Berlin: “Ich bin ein Frankfurter!’ Or: “Ich bin ein Hamburger!’ Americans didn’t get the Berliner joke.

        • Cuberly

          Lordy….apparently he ate a taco once.

          Oh my…..

          • Maggie 4NoH8

            It had to be the taco! Certainly not his calves… they are not melon-ish enough!

          • Cuberly

            Heh, his calves probably double as socks.

          • David Walker

            Be nice, Cuberly. Don’t call his daughters “cows.”

          • Cuberly


    • YakHerder

      Also, Obama will only be in office until January. Even if Garland were to be confirmed and seated by the beginning of the Court’s next term in October, that’d be four months of rubber-stamping over the course of a lifetime appointment. These people are idiots.

  • tcinsf

    the buzz is that this is going to be a 4-4 split, which means that the 5th circuit decision will stand.

    • Bruno

      Probably. Still doesn’t have as much bite as it would if it were 5-4 against the administration with Scalia, but basically the same outcome.

      • Butch

        Mark Joseph Stern at Slate definitely thinks so, but other writers aren’t so sure (Kos, for one); appears that the arguments Texas is making really are pretty flimsy.

        • Gustav2

          Standing may be the issue Roberts hangs his robe on. States have nothing to say about immigration.

          • Butch

            Well, this quote is from the Kos article, although it’s never clear whether the conservatives on the court are more swayed by legal arguments or by ideology, so who knows:
            “Republican state leaders and Speaker Paul Ryan’s lawyers made it clear they oppose the president’s policy on political grounds and don’t have a redressable legal claim,” he said. “On the merits, they conceded that Obama had the authority to grant reprieves to undocumented parents and Dreamers. As Kagan pointed out, their ‘gripe’ is letting undocumented people work, which just goes to show the anti-immigrant motive of this case.”

        • Bruno

          Pete Williams on MSNBC seemed fairly sure it’ll end up 4-4. Who knows though.

    • canoebum

      Yes, perhaps. But that will apply only to the 5th, and have no precedential value. Other Circuits may arrive at a far different conclusion, which would lead to a Circuit split, and the question will end up right back on the docket of the Supremes again.

      • YakHerder

        Nope, the 5th Circuit issued a nationwide injunction, and so the Supreme Court’s affirmance will apply nationwide.

        • canoebum

          No. The 5th Circuit has no jurisdiction beyond the 5th’s own area.

          • YakHerder

            Sorry, that’s wrong. Even before the Fifth Circuit weighed in, the federal trial court’s ruling barred the executive branch from implementing DAPA anywhere in the country (not just in the Southern District of Texas).

            The Obama administration argued that these lower courts shouldn’t block the program nationwide, but didn’t argue that they couldn’t do so.

            The Fifth Circuit addresses this issue at the very end of its ruling:

            The [Obama administration] claims that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion and requests that it be confined to Texas or the plaintiff states. But the Constitution requires “an uniform Rule of Naturalization”; Congress has instructed that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly”; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as “a comprehensive and unified system.” Partial implementation of DAPA would “detract[] from the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ created by Congress,” and there is a substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move among states.

            Furthermore, the Constitution vests the District Court with “the judicial Power of the United States.” That power is not limited to the district wherein the court sits but extends across the country. It is not beyond the
            power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.”

            And there you have it.

          • YakHerder

            Edited for civility 🙂

          • canoebum

            Interesting points, but cases may still be brought in other Circuits, which would lead to a split, as I mentioned, and the matter would be back before the Supreme Court. So, no matter how it plays out, unless there is a majority in the current case before the court, the matter will not be settled. The worst that can happen (and it is bad, I’m not minimizing the pain here), is the DACA/DAPA rules remain in limbo until a majority ruling is made.

  • hdtex

    Louie Gohmert is an UnAmerican PIECE OF SHIT.

  • LovesIrony

    you do not have a constitutional right to be heard or to be free from being spoken over

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    STFU and suck a cantaloupe Steve King

  • Gustav2

    Rep King, the government was not booing you, though it would like to boo you.

  • james_from_cambridge

    The Republicans (yes, it was them back then too) did this to Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants 100 years ago. In fact, in many ways, it was worse because hardly anyone defended the immigrants back then. Those immigrants got their revenge when their numbers got big enough to take over the Democratic party and take political power and put the Republicans in the wilderness for decades, from the 1930’s on. Now, those immigrants are part of the fabric of American life and are doing what was done to them to our new immigrants, who are also exploding in number and will likely take over the Democartic party and destroy the Republicans. In a hundred years, Latinos will be Republican and do to the new immigrants what was done to them. Welcome to America!


  • Butch

    For approximately the zillionteenth time: The First Amendment says that the government can’t arrest you for things you say. It does not say that people have to listen to your bullshit, Mr. King.

    • p

      …and the same right gives us the right to protest against you.

      Best one liner I’ve ever heard: “Yes, it gives you the right to spout bullshit, and gives me the right to describe to you how much it stinks.

      • JCF

        “and the same right gives us the right to protest against you”

        Who’s this “us” you speak of?

  • Hank

    The Rethuglicans, ALWAYS bring out the Constitution, when it SUITS THEM! Earlier today it was Rafael Eduardo Crud on TV using the First Amendment and “Freedom of Religion” to NON-Answer the Gay Married Republican asking about His Civil Rights! /s


    The only thing that can violate a person’s First Amendment Rights is the government. The fact that a congress critter does not understand that simple fact is amazing.

    Christ. What an asshole.

    • It never occurs to people like him that someone shouting you down is actually exercising their First Amendment rights.

  • JT
  • Queequeg

    The more you read about history, the more you realize that things never change, or they change very slowly. I juust started reading Erik Larson’s “In the Garden of the Beasts” about the American ambassador to Hitler’s Germany. Anti-Semitism was strong in the U.S. then and there was a lot of resistance to Jewish immigration. Some people never learn.

  • JT
    • SunnyDay

      Mind our asparagus laws!

  • OUTinMinnesota

    Yes, senators. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But along with that freedom come consequences.

    Just ask the governor of North Carolina.

  • Alan

    Steve King represents the district in Iowa where I grew up (if you can say he represents anyone other than his own demented self). He’s as dim a bulb as there is in Congress, and the bar is pretty low.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Some of us stayed unfortunately.

  • delk

    That tea has been steeping for too long.

    • Acronym Jim

      Yes. It’s become a bitter, bitter brew that ate the silver plate right off the flatwear that was the Republican party.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Oh look! A bunch of old white guys holding up signs to show the world how fucking stupid they are and have no clue how the Constitution works.

    One question? Where are all their scooters?

  • Rebecca Gardner

  • fuzzybits

    I’m glad the SCOTUS and Mr. Orergefell gave these hayseeds such agita.

    • fuzzybits


      • Rebecca Gardner

        Does it really matter? Nobody can pronounce his name. LOL. We just all know the awesomeness behind it.

        • fuzzybits

          True that. I was just ready to duck in case any grammar police threw a shoe or something.

          • Jean-Marc in Canada

            Ah yes, the grammar police, always their to lecture you about they’re views regarding there rules about how to right and speak. Truly, the most annually retentive morons.

            Their, that should do it. Hahahahahahaha

          • That was two much.

          • Gianni

            😀 That did it for me. Too many flubs to even contemplate.

  • Six Pins Delores

    Note to self: Never light a match near Gohmert prior to his giving a speech

  • DaveDocSC

    That was 3 minutes of the most ignorant, convoluted BS I have ever heard.
    He should be deported back to planet stupid.

  • Jack

    Silly Sen. King. First Amendment doesn’t apply to citizens drowning out a speaker!

  • Traxley Launderette

    Old white men in baseball caps bitching about being oppressed.

    Their failure to recognize irony is too hilarious.

    • Sporkfighter

      But is it ironic?

  • Octavio

    Las bolsitas de té son cojos. Pronto serán muertos.

  • JCF


    And that summarizes the SORRY state of democracy in the USA today. 🙁

  • RJ Bone

    ““Why are you all yelling?” said King, who was yelling into a microphone himself. “You want to be citizens of America? And conduct yourselves in a fashion where you try to shout down someone who is exercising their right to freedom of speech? Do I need to start reading the Constitution from the First Amendment?””

    Okay, now we have to explain this to the lawmakers, too? You can say bigoted, selfish thing you want, asshole, but not without consequences. The only thing the amendment guarantees is that the government, you know, YOURSELF can’t stop someone from speaking freely.

    So we can shout you the fuck down as long as we aren’t the government. anygod knows you do it all the time to us and claim the right to do so.