This means YOU, Antonin Scalia!

It's kind of funny but sad at the same time. You just gave the crazy arrested today the perfect defense.

The prohibition on "abusive" language violates the First Amendment because it encompasses more than "fighting words," which may be prohibited. It is, therefore, overbroad on its face, which means that even a person prosecuted for using fighting words should get off.

See? Justice Thomas has just been scrupulous in his strict construction of that law, uncommonly silly though it may be.

That is fantastic.

Did yesterday's outburst during the abortion arguments spark your interest, Orin?

Since it constitutes an overstepping of Legislative authority to so constrain the members of the Judiciary Branch, this law is clearly unconstitional prima facie. =)

I also suspect the "oration" part may violate the Right of Petition, as well as of Freedom of Speech, especially if the oration is phrased as a request for certiorari. However, IAmNotALawyer, and getting any judge (and perhaps eventually the SCOTUS) to rule that way might be a challenge.

this wouldn't be the perfect example of the need to take into account the intent of the drafters, would it?

Pretty hard to harrangue during a Supreme Court "argument," which is a little more like a cross-examination in which the speaker is lucky to get two sentences spoken between questions.

One fellow told me he knew he was in trouble when he couldn't even get out the customary preface. It went like:

"Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please..."

Chief Justice: "Counsel, I have a question..."

If oral argument is a crime, let me be guilty.

By the way, getting interrupted is good, not bad -- it gives you a chance to address the justices' concerns. Pity the lawyer who gets to read his whole speech without interruptions. The lawyer's prepared speech, moreover, probably just repeats the summary of the argument from the brief, so anything he says that's not directly responsive to a question from the justices is probably a waste of time.

I was there. He was the only person in the room wearing a Jesus t-shirt. But I didn't realize he was sitting next to Carhart.

As a law clerk (state judge, not on SCOTUS) I always thought that oral argument was criminally wasteful of my time.

One spoke with an AZ supreme ct. justice who said that Sandra Day had talked about it -- she was on AZ Ct. of Apps before she got the Supremes appointment.

He said he bet she heard some good oral arguments up there, and she responded, no, she heard much better ones in the ct. of appeals. He was surprised.

She replied by the time it gets to the Supremes, the state atty generals figure they have to argue in person. They're politicians who know how to win elections, not cases. "In Division One (of ct. of appeals) we heard under-prepared attorneys. In the Supreme Court, we hear under-prepared politicians. I'll take the under-prepared attorney any day."

From listening to a few arguments, both in the state and in the US Supremes, I've got to say that the quality of argument was VERY low.

I once wrote up a satirical guide to oral argument, with things like:

Remember that an excessive focus on facts and record can detract from much more interesting legal abstractions.

Reading from a typed transcript will avoid slips of the tongue.

Speak in a monotone so as to avoid irritating the court.

If a Justice asks a question that you will address later, simply respond "I'll be getting to that later, Your Honor, and will get there more quickly if you stop interrupting my presentation."

If you briefed the matter being asked, respond that "If you'd bothered to read my brief, you'd know the answer to that, Mr. Chief Justice."

Always be ready with a snappy "Your Honor, I won't even dignify that question with an answer."

How does the bailiff get away with the Oyez, Oyez?

§ 6136. Suspension of prohibitions against use of Supreme Court grounds

To allow the observance of authorized ceremonies in the Supreme Court Building and grounds, the Marshal of the Supreme Court may suspend for those occasions any of the prohibitions contained in this subchapter as may be necessary for the occasion if--

(1) responsible officers have been appointed; and

(2) the Marshal determines that adequate arrangements have been made--

(A) to maintain suitable order and decorum in the proceedings; and

(B) to protect the Supreme Court Building and grounds and individuals and property in the Building and grounds.

... incidentally, 40 U.S.C. 6135 makes it illegal to STAND in the SCOTUS or on SCOTUS grounds.

Focus on the "or grounds" part of "Supreme Court building or grounds." And note the Grace case that arbitraryaardvark linked above. The whole statute seems primarily aimed at protest activity in the whole front area of the Court, between the building and the sidewalk, where people might harangue, burn effigies, etc. The building is just a special case of the grounds.