The Bill of Rights,a new Interpretation

I read that New York Supreme Court Justice Jaqueline Silberman ruled that the people can't assemble in the park because "It would hurt the grass."
I guess the language below doesn't impress the good Justice very much:
The Bill of Rights
"These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the 'Bill of Rights.'
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...(From the National Archives)

It impresses me though, a lot. Perhaps because I'm old fashioned. They didn't split infinitives in those days! Or maybe because I think the government really is supposed to come from the consent of the governed. I don't know.
Jaquy also says security for the gathering can't be guaranteed. She doesn't seem to worry about that with regard to the Republican National Convention, where a President sworn to do all in his power to harm the American People will be nominated for re-election. Talk about a security risk!
It also seems wrong to me that, apparently, cows have rights superior to the people. Talk about hurting the grass; take a look at the state of the grass in places where cattle are gathered into feed lots (Harris Ranch, along I-5 in California comes odoriforously to mind). If cattle are allowed to peaceably assemble, why are people forbidden to do the same? Perhaps the cattle are Republicans.
(Apologies for "odoriforously", sometimes a word just begs to be used!)