Spamming a Judge Is Contempt of Court

eldavojohn writes "TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in jail because he urged his fans and followers to spam a judge. Apparently the judge (who was deluged with emails) decided that this was an act of contempt of court on the court's 'virtual presence' since nothing happened while the court was in session in regards to Trudeau's courtroom behavior. US Marshals are now trudging through those emails to decide if any are threatening."

Comments

Why is the judge going after Trudeau

[harrytuttle777]

In a free society, shouldn't people be allowed to buy snake oil if they choose to. More importantly, why is a state that is trying to protect the population from the likes of 'Kevin Trudeau' and at the same be peddling lottery tickets to those who are bad at math?

Just Curious

Re:Lobbying the Judicial vs. Legislative Branches?

[DriedClexler]

My response was, the Supreme Court overturning laws (and they are the only ones who can) because they are deemed unconstitutional is not the same thing as writing laws.

Okay, that would be an assertion, not an argument, since my claim was that the way that they repeal laws is functionally the same as what legislators can do. (And I'd add they can apply the law in very specific ways; courts have e.g. told legislators that they have to do something to allow for gay marriage, which *kinda* stretches the meaning of "not making laws".)

One key difference being, you can not lobby the Supreme Court to overturn laws.

Right, except for that whole "amicus curae" thingamawhatchamacallit.

Or pursuing a deliberate "test case" to the Supreme Court, which has been going on since Brown.

I'm sorry, if you can't understand the distinction, or find it trivial, there isn't much more I can say except that you are misinformed, and suggest you go to the source for clarification: the US constitution itself.

And I'm sorry if you don't see the difference between a superficial and a substantive distinction, and the difference between the Constitution saying things are done a certain way vs. them actually being done that way. But that says more about your incapability of higher-level, abstract thought than anything about limitations of the Supreme Court.

Keep it up, though! I get a good laugh out of you.