Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney

[Kelvin Mace]

3. No surprise here

What was never addressed was did he IN FACT "bump" Cheney. That finding would have made this ruling justified or unjustified. What makes this utter nonsense is this statement:

“This court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. Such a right was certainly not “clearly established at the time of Howards’ arrest,” he added.

In my view, any "retaliatory arrest" should be illegal. Either a person is arrested with probably cause, or they were not. Thomas specifically carves out a new arrest parameter (retaliatory arrest) and declares it legal as long as some "probable cause" is supplied LATER.

It began on June 16, 2006 when Steven Howards spotted Cheney emerging from a shopping mall in Beaver Creek, Colo., and chatting amiably with several persons. Howards approached the vice president and allegedly pushed or touched him on the shoulder as he voiced his criticism.
Nothing happened immediately, but Gus Reichle, a Secret Service coordinator on the scene, heard about the incident from other agents. He then confronted Howards, accused him of an assault and ordered his arrest.

Howards was detained for several hours and released. No charges were filed against him.

No charges were filed.

NO CHARGES WERE FILED.

The decision to arrest was made long after the incident took place, and there was plenty of time for reflection on whether an actual assault occurred.

The man was arrested for daring to criticize Cheney.

So now, "retaliatory arrest" is now legal.

Again, why do people think I am crazy when I state that we live in a de facto police state?