One who comes to the Court must come to adore, not to protest. That's the new gloss on the 1st Amendment.

William O. Douglas’s quote, "One who comes to the Court must come to adore, not to protest. That's the new gloss on the 1st Amendment," reflects his frustration with the shifting interpretation of the 1st Amendment and its application in legal settings, particularly in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Douglas, a former U.S. Supreme Court justice, is critiquing what he perceives as a narrowing of the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, specifically the right to protest or express dissent. The phrase “must come to adore” suggests that, in his view, people were now expected to approach the Court with deference and respect, rather than challenging or protesting its decisions.

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedoms related to religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, and Douglas’s comment is an ironic twist on how these rights are sometimes interpreted. By saying "that's the new gloss on the 1st Amendment," Douglas is pointing out that a more recent interpretation of the 1st Amendment is seen as favoring conformity and unquestioning respect for authority, particularly when it comes to the Court, rather than fostering an environment where citizens are encouraged to voice opposition or protest. This view contrasts with his own belief in the robust protection of individual rights and freedoms.

Douglas, known for his strong advocacy of civil liberties, often supported the idea that the 1st Amendment should be used to protect the right to protest and criticize government actions. His comment reflects his concern that the Court, and by extension the broader legal system, was becoming more insular, where dissent and challenges to authority were less welcomed or acknowledged. He viewed this shift as a threat to the core values of the 1st Amendment.

In essence, Douglas’s quote critiques the way the 1st Amendment is being interpreted, particularly in the context of the Court. He laments the shift away from allowing protest and criticism toward a more conformist view that stifles dissent. For him, this “new gloss” undermines the original intent of the 1st Amendment, which was meant to protect the rights of individuals to express their opinions and challenge authority without fear of repression.