his courtroom constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated that “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses protect.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000). However, although Defendant is correct that “judges are not First Amendment orphans,” (Br. of Appellant at 43), Defendant’s hanging of the poster in his courtroom is not the private judicial speech protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause. See Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Defendant presented the identical argument to
holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political holding unconstitutional an ordinance prohibiting opprobious language holding political discharges were unconstitutional holding unconstitutional a statute prohibiting judges running for election from expressing a view on political issues during campaigns