Fred Phelps' free speech rights

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the free-speech rights of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of soldiers. Glenn Beck and others argue that free speech is free speech and must be defended, especially the most reprehensible, detestable speech.

I get that argument but it's not like all speech is completely unregulated. Take the 'yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater' example. That's free speech of the worst kind and yet the court regulates the time and venue where you can use it. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with yelling "FIRE" as loudly as you like in the middle of a cow pasture or an empty theater. The court has held that provocative, controversial speech has appropriate times and venues.

A similar ruling could be made here. As much as I detest Fred Phelps and his inbred, retarded followers, I support their right to be obnoxious, reprehensible degenerates through speech, just not in a way that directly hinders a private family from grieving during the burial of a loved one. This speaks to the issue of the family's Constitutional right to pursue happiness. I would without hesitation support this groups right to protest, march, and say whatever they like anytime and anywhere else in America, but they should not be allowed to disrupt a family's funeral observance.

All speech, especially detestable speech, should be free, but time and place can be limited.

EPA--the most dangerous agency in America

Since the idiotic ruling by the Supreme Court that the EPA can regulate any and all sources of the harmless gas CO2, the potential power grabs by the federal government of literally every facet of our lives, included breathing, are moving forward.

Because bullets necessarily contain lead, and the EPA defines lead as an environmental contaminant, they believe that they have the authority to ban all bullets(bullets containing other materials are considered armor piercing and are therefore illegal already) effectively rendering all privately owned weapons useless. But this stealth assault on the 2nd amendment by the voracious federal bureaucracy is precisely what we would expect from the adolescent Marxist in the white house. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. Meanwhile the EPA is stockpiling weapons for enforcement purposes. Be afraid!

20 months ago it would have been farcical to envision a time in which the EPA, having been given unlimited powers of regulation and enforcement, assumed authoritarian power over the citizenry. But now, it's very imaginable if not likely.

Go out and buy all the guns and ammo you can afford before our petty, tyrannical overlords get the ban in place.

Elena Kagan needs to be "Borked"

Think Obama's nomination of androgynous radical Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court was a good idea?



In case you missed it, Robert Bork was an eminently qualified, Constitutional originalist when he was nominated by Reagan for the Supreme Court. Within 45 minutes of his nomination the now mercifully deceased Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and lied repeatedly about Bork's positions. It is called the Bork's America Speech in the history books and is one of the most shameful episodes in American politics. Joe Biden was the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair at the time and he spear-headed the defeat of Bork as a justice and from the process a new verb was formed. "to Bork" which means to vilify unfairly a political appointee in order to sabotage their nomination to office.(as if you needed another reason to hate the retard Biden).

It would be fittingly ironic if Kagan were to be defeated for the S.C. since she thought the Bork hearing were a good thing. We'll see if the GOP has the guts to stand up against her brand of leftist radicalism. I'm betting they do not.

Are you a 1 percenter?

This is just plain embarrassing.....

From WashingtonMonthly -- AN UNFAMILIAR COURT.... Can you name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court? If so, you're better informed than nearly two-thirds of the country. If you can name all nine, you beat 99% of the population.

FindLaw.com released the results of its latest national poll, and found that only 35% of the country can name even one justice.

Clarence Thomas is the most well known justice but could be named by only 19 percent of Americans. Chief Justice John Roberts was named by 16 percent of people. Sonia Sotomayor, the newest justice, could be named by only 15 percent of Americans following a highly visible nomination and confirmation process last year.

The single greatest impact presidents have on the US is reflected in the justices they nominate to the Supreme Court. Yet few Americans even pay attention closely enough to name even one justice, much less all nine. This is the legacy by design, of our dreadful public school system....an uninformed populace that can name the last 20 Idol contestants each season but cannot name a single supreme court justice.

As TRR readers are much more informed than the average American, I'm sure you can name most, if not all, of the 9 justices pictured here. Take the test, and be honest, then report back here and see how you did.

SCOTUS to move further left.....uuuuugghh!

Chairman Zero doesn't have a clue what a supreme court justice is supposed to do......

WASHINGTON – Emboldened by success the first time around, President Barack Obama is likely to pick the Supreme Court nominee he wants and let the confirmation fight proceed from there, putting huge emphasis on a justice who would bring a fight-for-the-little-guy sensibility to the job.

A judge at any level, especially the supreme court, isn't supposed to be fighting for any side. The judge is supposed to be on the side of the law. And supreme court justices are supposed to be on the side of the Constitution. It matters not if the complainant is a little guy or a multi-national corporation, the judge should rule based on the Constitution.

Legislators, not judges, make laws. If liberal judges interpret the Constitution in broader and broader ways, pretty soon it'll mean just about anything anybody wants it to mean. But then, that's the big-picture goal of liberalism isn't it......to mold the Constitution into meaninglessness through incrementalism? And appointing activist, liberal judges who'll liberally interpret the Constitution is the biggest step in that direction.

A SCOTUS appointment for Obama in 2010?

CNN is reporting to it's 12 remaining viewers that the Obama administration is quietly preparing for a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year following the June recess. Smart money is picking John Paul Stevens to be the next to step down though he has neither confirmed or denied that rumor. The question is, what kind of justice will Obama nominate?

The easy answer is that he'll go with a radical, activist lefty to drag the court away from the middle. But, how will his nominating radicals play in the upcoming elections? If Americans, already wary of the Obama administration's far-leftward slant, think he's stacking the court against them too, it'll give conservative candidates ammunition on the stump...

"A vote for me is a vote to keep the system checked and balanced against Obama-style socialism and an activist court".

Obama would certainly want to wait until after the mid-terms but, what if republicans make huge gains and even win back one or both houses of congress? He'll have to rely then, on the self-marginalized media to do the heavy lifting for him. The MSM will try to goad conservatives into voting for a liberal justice but, the incumbent carnage of the midterms that we all hope happens, will make the remaining judiciary committee members think twice about abandoning their conservative election promises.

A virtual cookie to the first reader who can name, without cheating, the justices in order(left to right). You're on the honor system not to look them up.

Justice Alito stands up to Chairman Zero

Justice Alito puts the slapdown on Obama after being scolded by Chairman Zero for the Court having repealed most of the dreadful McCain/Feingold campaign finance law....



Alito's right. McCain/Feingold was nothing but a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, in this case, the most precious kind of free speech....political speech. Why the reprobate McCain ever went along with this travesty in the first place is a mystery, unless it is that he had grown to adore himself for being the media's "maverick" darling.

I can't recall a President ever criticizing the Supreme Court to their faces in a SOTU speech. Good for Justice Alito for standing up to executive-branch intimidation and bullying. Intimidation tactics might work in Chicago but Alito won't be pushed around by a play-ground bully pretending to be President.

The Supreme Court gets one right

The Supreme Court wisely affirmed the broad interpretation of the first amendment Americans should expect rather than the narrow interpretation that liberals desire...

From Gallup -- PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

Limiting the size of donations is debatable and probably a good thing but, restricting political speech by groups you feel are hostile to your world view is unconstitutional in the extreme. And that's precisely what McCain/Feingold did. The liberal agenda is generally hostile to corporations so any restriction of their political speech during campaign season is beneficial to them. This is why they are apoplectic about this ruling. Now corporations, which are made up of individuals, can produce issue-based campaign ads right up to election day. The broadening of free-speech, especially political speech, is always good as long as it comes with full and immediate disclosure.

Plus, when trolls like Chuck Shumer, Barney Frank, and Dick Durbin are going nuts and calling for congressional hearings, you know the ruling was a good one based on that alone.

Silence is Golden (HA!)

Posted by Reid:

As the general public watches (in horror I hope) the newest Supreme Court Nominee plays a bad game of politics. Time and time again, she has been told that her approval is a done deal, but Ms. Sotomayor still refuses to let the American folks know... Whats Going On (kudos to Marvin Gaye)!

She staunchly refused to answer questions yesterday about the 2nd amendment and her interpretation of it. Adding to that insult to our forefathers, Sonia "The Great" has today stonewalled on abortion and its implications. She expressed outrage that her soon-to-be-new-boss (Obama) guaranteed she would support abortion rights. She has yet to give any citizen, forget the Senators, any inkling of her agenda. I will state that I am opposed to her elevation to the Supreme Court, but I am more upset by her disdain for the people she is set to serve (for life). It appears to this witness, that Judge Sotomayor doesn't give a plugged nickel about the American people as a whole, and that all this is about is her minority upbringing and how she has overcome that obstacle to achieve greatness. What kind of crap are we about to buy? Where will our highest court move? Are we sure that we can afford to angle the face of the nation to allow this person to start the avalanche of our rights and this country's greatness. It was once said that "America was great because its people are good. When the good goes, away goes the greatness." I think we stand on that very precipice as we speak. Watch and learn folks. its gonna be a long haul........

The legacy of Obama

The longest lasting legacy of any President's administration is felt with the judges he appoints to the Supreme Court. That's why the Constitution mandates that he appoint them with the advice and consent of the US Senate, being the representatives of the states' interests. The confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee begin today for Judge Sotomayor. She's a sure thing to get confirmed, barring a bombshell that nobody knows about. The job for conservatives on the committee is to make sure the American people know who Obama is appointing to the Supreme Court so that when she casts votes, we know at whose step to lay the blame. And if they can show what a far-left, activist judge she is, maybe the democrats on the committee will think twice before casting their aye vote.

Ken Starr volunteers to be useful idiot of the Left

As Ken Starr investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton, he enjoyed the support of conservatives across America who defended him from criticism from democrats and the media.....and this is the thanks we get?

Kenneth Starr, the lawyer who chased after President Bill Clinton and his wife, said on Thursday that he supports President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

I guess simply living in California is enough to turn even the most hated conservative since Nixon into a moderate who just wants to be liked by his liberal peers. Make no mistake, democrats and especially the media will make plenty of hay off this one when the confirmation hearings start.

What an idiot! Thanks for nothing Ken.

Not so fast, Chosen One

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg put the brakes on Obama's law-skirting regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy. See, under long-standing federal and Delaware law(Chrysler is incorporated in Delaware), when a company declares bankruptcy, it must abide by applicable federal and state laws. Under those laws, there is a hierarchy of payoffs to creditors that take place as the company liquidates assets. First the bond-holders get paid off at 100cents on the dollar, then come the preferred stockholders followed by the common stock holders. By royal decree apparently, Obama gave the UAW(who are not bond-holders) 54cents on the dollar for their 10% investment, but gave the bond-holders only 27cents on the dollar for their 20% original share. Who besides the main-stream media doesn't see an obvious, political payoff to the unions here?

Thankfully, some of the bond-holders had the guts to stand up to The One's rail-roading of them and the law. Ginsberg has 24 hours from yesterday to decide whether she'll let the Court hear this case. If she allows it, it'll be the first time anybody has dared slow down Obama's transformation of the country, and a delightful smack-down of Obama's belief that he is above the law. That is was the Court's most liberal justice is icing on the cake.

The Blindfold Is Being Removed

Posted by Reid

"Lady Justice" as she has been called is currently under attack. She is under attack by the very country that made her great. You see when our judicial system was born, it was created to give all comers a fair trial. Now we all know that not every judicial decision in the history of the country has been right or fair, but the system was never compromised from the head down. Until now!

President Obama has selected Sonia Sotomayor to be his first Supreme Court nominee. He seems to have followed other of his choices of trying to leave a legacy of "firsts" regardless of ability to do the job. Ms. Sotomayor is a poor choice. Based on comments and previous statements she is biased and will discriminate as she makes nation effecting decisions. She stated earlier that she could make a better decision than a white man, because of her life as a Latino woman and the trials that went along with her upbringing. I couldn't disagree more. All she does, in making statements like this, is to show her true value orienting colors and her limited working knowledge of the US Constitution and how it should perform. I assume she will adopt the Thurgood Marshall philosophy of making rules and letting the law catch up.

It appears that this choice of Obama's is geared towards rendering Gay marriage as acceptable (even though recent polls show that over 65% of Americans don't agree) , taking control of the country, and for the promoting of ethnics in lieu of more qualified white counterparts, at the country's expense.

I don't know what other options Mr. Obama had, but I have to believe that there is someone more qualified and less controversial than she.

The blindfold is coming off, and justice now looks down its biased and racial nose at those it was set to protect. Sex, race, and position in life should always be outside of a judicial decision, not the reason for it. Our new world will be much different. If similar nominees follow, the court will effect lives for generations to come. What's next, shortening her dress or making her look less "white"? When will the madness stop? When will the constituency stand up and realize it is being played for a fool? How far can we let everything go before we take a stand? I don't know, but feel that it better be sooner than later or maybe later won't get here, ever.

Obama's rubber-stamp appointees to SCOTUS

Ans so it begins, the descent and perversion of the Supreme Court into an activist collection of hard-left liberals, who'll no doubt carve Obama's radical-left political policy into the national stone regardless of constitutionality. Here's some of the empathetic idiocy to which we can look forward...

Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The law respects no man because of his race, life station, economic status, life experiences, and expecially not because of how sorry the judge may feel for him. The Constitution is the law. It should be blind to arbitrary qualifications and favor neither party except as to their legal argument. Look for Obama's appointments to essentially radicalize the court in a far-left direction the same way that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are radicalizing the legislative and executive branches.

Obama's words betray his intentions

For liberal Presidents, Supreme Court appointments represent the opportunity to shape the American landscape like no other act as Chief Executive. For liberals, the concept of Constitutional, blind justice has no meaning, for they see courts in general as means by which they can circumvent normal legislative efforts and impose far-left doctrine on the rest of us. This subversion of the Constitutional legislative process is why liberal Presidents like Obama use ridiculous rationalizations for nominating leftist, activist judges. Here's The One on his general philosophy on Supreme appointments.....

"We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize — the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Heart? Empathy? What the heck to these things have to do with justice under the Constitution?

By contrast, let's see what Chief Justice John Roberts said when asked whether he would favor the little guy...

He replied that if the law favored the little guy he would decide in his favor. But if the law favored the other side (a business, a corporation, a rich man) he would decide in their favor.

That's profound compared to Obama's "empathy and heart" line. Clearly, Obama will be nominating judges who have records of siding with, regardless of the Constitutionality, the usual suspects that comprise the democrats' favored, victim class such as gays, unwed mothers, the poor, immigrants, women, drug addicts, welfare parasites, and above all, blacks. Obama rarely talks about the Constitution when discussing the Supreme Court, and when he does it's just memorized cliche and lip service. His intent is to appoint judges who will implement from the bench, the radical policies that democrats cannot pass legislatively in Congress, because the American people will oppose them. If Obama gets another term in 2012, he'll likely get to appoint three more justices when Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and Steven Breyer retire during that time. Heaven help us.

Biden confounds Obama again, and this time it's important

Over at Hotair, there's and interesting assessment of why Specter's defection could actually help republicans on the judiciary committee block some of Obama's likely abysmal picks to replace Souter on the SCOTUS.

Briefly, the Senate rules state that if even one member of the minority agrees, any filibuster may be broken. Specter would likely have been that vote. Now he's just another D vote. If the remaining republicans on the committee stick together, they can lessen the damage to the Supreme Court by forcing Obama to pick somebody more moderate than he otherwise would have. And the funniest part, Mr. Gafftastic Biden was very instrumental in getting Specter to defect.

Thanks Plugs.

We are citizens, not subjects

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the restriction of privately owned handguns. It turned out exactly as I predicted in a 5-4 ruling with liberals Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissenting. My favorite Justice Scalia, wrote for the majority. Here's part of the article over on Breitbart.com....

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Excellent ruling today! This ought to shut up, once and for all, the harping by anti-gun nuts and liberals who want an unarmed society in which only the criminals and the government have guns.

UPDATE: From reading the coverage of this slim victory of constitutionalists like me, I've gathered these points: 1. That this victory hinged on how Justice Kennedy felt when he got up this morning is scary. 2. That 4 Justices ruled against the second amendment is even scarier. 3. If Gore or Kerry were President, it would be all but impossible to purchase or own a firearm in America. 4. When Obama becomes President and the liberals control the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ginsberg and maybe Kennedy will almost certainly retire. Ginsberg will be replace by another raving mad liberal, but Kennedy, the lone centrist, will also be replace by a raving mad liberal. Then the balance of the court will be 5 liberals to 4 conservatives. Then you'd better hide your guns.

Citizens or subjects

A big decision comes down from the Supremes tomorrow regarding gun control...

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

I predict Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will overturn the ban, with Kennedy siding with the majority. Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter will predictably uphold the ban. As liberals, they loathe the idea of individuals being able to defend themselves against the tyranny of the State or from other individuals.

I read this comment on another blog today and it fit so perfectly my gun-ownership ideas, I decided to repeat it....

"Citizens are armed, subjects are not. We shall remain armed"

Let's hope that's how it turns out.

Justice Clinton? Heaven help us!

Assuming Hillary doesn't pull a rabbit out of her hat between now and the dem convention in Denver, after Obama accepts the nomination, what will become of the smartest woman in the world? Senate Majority Leader? Vice President? Senior Senator from New York? Each would be appealing to her for various reasons.

Last night on the news, Brit Hume tossed her name into the hat for the next justice on the Supreme Court. I about fell off the couch. As detestable and loathsome as Hillary's politics are, the damage she does as a senator can be mitigated by veto, partisan compromise, or legislative defeat. As a Supreme, her radical liberal agenda will cause the Court to lurch dramatically to the Left and her wretched socialist legacy will haunt our childrens' children. I can't imagine a worse pick. She'd be far worse than RBGinsberg. The republicans are going to lose bigtime in both the House and Senate. If the Obama-messiah wins the WhiteHouse, he'll be able to install any nutjob he wants onto the bench. Everybody knows that's what Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter are waiting for. I prefer a Hillary presidency to a Justice Hillary.

You will conform! You will obey! You will become part of the collective! Resistance is futile!

Capital crime's expanding definition

I'm probably not the best person to be rendering an opinion on the death penalty where kids are involved, as I am an unempathetic SOB who couldn't care less about how harsh is the punishment for guys who victimize children. That being said, as the rule stands now, a life has to be taken for the perp to be eligible for the death penalty.....as it turns out, not so much....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court this week hears arguments about whether the death penalty can be imposed for child rape, taking up for the first time in more than 30 years whether a crime other than murder can be punished by execution.

The nation's highest court has set arguments on Wednesday on whether the death penalty for the crime of raping a child represents unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.

The case involved an appeal by Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana, who was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter and sentenced to death.

The gut reaction of normal people is to think, "yeah, kill the guy. He raped a child", but is that Constitutional?
We know that the framers had Judeo-Christian morals in mind when they wrote the Constitution. So the concept of an-eye-for-an-eye was surely taken into account when they banned cruel and unusual punishment. So de we as a society have the right to impose the death penalty as punishment for a crime that most of us find more reprehensible than even murder, and it not be considered cruel or unusual? Frankly, I'm stunned that a lower court judge gave a jury the death penalty option for a rape, leading to a Supreme Court appeal.

The other, and possibly more important issue is this: if loss of life is no longer the standard for capital crime, then who's to say armed robbery, or simple assault, battery, bank-robbery...whatever, could at some point be grounds for the death penalty?

What do you think?