Skip to comments.Palin Rips Supreme Court Ruling
Posted on 03/02/2011 7:26:59 PM PST by pissant
Sarah Palin voiced disappointment with a Supreme Court decision Wednesday protecting the First Amendment rights of anti-gay protesters at military funerals. Continue Reading
"Common sense & decency absent as wacko church' allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square," Palin tweeted .
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest outside the funerals - though the court recognized the right of local authorities to put restrictions on how close to a proceeding the group can protest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
I love Sarah but she is wrong on this.
I love Sarah but she is wrong on this.
Free Speech Sarah Free Speech! if they can remove Free Speech from 1 group they can remove it from others.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a “hostile or offensive working environment” for other employees.
That’s used against Christians. I think she is just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Maybe funeral times should be published publicly for one time and then actually held at another. These people have a tight schedule to keep, so that might be the way to defeat them. Well that and teargas.
Aren’t cemetaries privately owned property? As such, don’t the owners have the right to say who can or can’t come onto their property?
As I see it, it’s not a free speech issue. It’s a property rights issue. The Westboro group can conduct their display of lunacy out in the street or on whatever public property they can get a permit for.
The WBC crowd are agent provocateurs. They are far left socialists who want to make Christians look bad. The fact that they are protesting soldiers who gave their lives so that they could spew their nonsense is extremely sickening. HOWEVER, creating an exception to the First Amendment for jackass behavior would lead to the left using such an exception to further restrict the First Amendment as applied to other individuals. That would be a terrible tragedy.
Palin seems to think and speak in soundbytes, and this issue is far more complex than that. This is one where bad facts had the potential to make bad law, but cooler heads prevailed.
There are other ways to deal with the WBC leftists besides dismantling the First Amendment.
PDS Getting the best of you - again. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Go look at the tweet again, and pay attention to the last part... “Common sense & decency absent as wacko church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,”
She’s pointing out the incongruity of the SCOTUS giving free speech to the vile Phelps followers while religious speech in the public square is being limited.
She’s on the money.
By the way, this SCOTUS ruling is right and proper. What is needed is more free speech to counter Phelps and firends.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a ruling that's technically correct. She's just pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standards.
Palin's "tweet" makes perfect sense: how can the SCOTUS allow Westboro without allowing the 10 Commandments?
It'll be very interesting to see how constructionist the SCOTUS views the Commerce Clause when ruling on Obamacare: 8-1 again????
Come on, you knew that liberals like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were going to rule like this...uh...wait.
Seriously this confirms what I’ve always thought about Palin. I understand where she’s coming from, truly, I do. I secretly hope that someone throws a grenade through a window of their bus. If it were to happen, I’d get out of jury duty because I’d honestly tell the judge (I don’t believe in nullification) that I could not convict because I’m horribly biased against Wesboro.
That’s where Palin is coming from, and I get the emotional response. However, as a grownup, I realize that a dispassionate application of the law has to side with Westboro. Palin, obviously does not, or in her case, I would wager simply cannot understand it.
You don’t have to publish the time of a funeral. It can simply go unpublished at the family’s request, so your suggestion is not necessary.
She’s absolutely right. The church was not using common sense or decency. And it’ is their right to free speech. Should they be so vile, No I don’t think so. But they have the right to do it. Sarah was not putting down the ruling. She was pointing out that the vile church is allowed, has the right to free speech. Seems like Christians don’t. And no, I do not consider that church Christian.
Should we be allowed to talk about Christ and God in the open, Yes. And it’s a matter of time, til it all comes to a head. We will be persecuted, so the Bible says...
They may have “freedom of speech” but that won’t protect them from having the snot beat out of them by a bunch of angry veterans.
Anyway, you completely missed her point...which was also Mark's point---that the courts have made a shambles out of the 1st Amendment with its maddening inconsistencies.
Geez you guys need to fricking READ rather than jerking your knees. Nowhere is she saying the ruling itself was bad she's just saying it's common sense that you don't protest at a fallen soldier's funeral.
I’d be willing to suck up an assault charge for pummeling a couple of Westboro freaks. Yes, it’s wrong, yes, it would be a crime, but I think doing 30-90 in jail would be a price I’d be willing to pay. However, I can’t extend that sentiment to the courts. The courts have to uphold the law, only the law, and nothing but the law.
Disagree. She said common sense and decency absent as church allowed...Obviously referring to SCOTUS as the authority that has allowed it to happen. She is indeed criticizing the ruling.
Because I don't think that would be right, and I don't think it would be allowed, but I don't see how it would be different.
“However, as a grownup, I realize that a dispassionate application of the law has to side with Westboro.”
So Justice Alito did not engage in a “dispassionate application” of the law...?
For what it's worth, Mark Levin -- who knows more about constitutional law than either of us -- agrees with Palin.
Horse droppings. You really believe Governor Palin doesn't understand the issue or the 1st Amendment?
Yes, legally you can. I was in Jasper, Texas when the Klan came after James Byrd was drug to death behind a redneck piloted pickup. The Klan had signs, banners, and said things through a public address system no less vile that what you posted. There was nothing that could be done to stifle their speech.
Interesting to realize how that type of situation would quickly correct itself!
It would only happen once!
Since we’re name dropping, I’d say that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts know as much if not more about the constitution than Levin, and they reached a consensus that says Levin is wrong.
Note, I haven’t read Levin’s statement, so I’m relying on you 100% that Levin disagrees with Thomas, Scalia and Roberts.
BS. As I stated, I was in Jasper, Texas, when the Klan came and did just that. Then they kept doing it until the story died.
Oh, I think the gov understands the state of First Amendment case law just fine. As do I. We just both think it’s stupid.
C'mon. You and I both know that just because they invoke God's name doesn't make them real Christians. They're about as Christian as Al Queada.
No, read the full context. Don't just stop mid sentence.
That would be the full and unbiased reading of what she said. Good luck with that.
While not being able to pray at a HS game or have the 10 Commandments in a courtroom. You must have missed that she was pointing out the hypocrisy. Phelps can use God's name vilely but high schoolers can't pray at a football game.
Yes, and I agree with (both of) your comments.
That's all this is about ~ respect. Westboro respects no one.
We are all praying for their early death and dismemberment, and not necessarily in that order.
And the Justices who couldn't see what the question was deserve no less (but not until we get Obama out of there ~ wouldn't want him appointing more wierdos and perverts).
>> She is indeed criticizing the ruling.
Uhhh... not this ruling, but the other rulings the wrap chains around Christianity.
He said in the “hood”.
Kind of hard to see how it would be tolerated there....
Sorry, Palin is 100% correct. If this is a free speech issue, does the supreme court now say ANY speech, anywhere, anytime is ok?
What definition of free speech is designed to protect the right to laugh, dance, sing and celebrate the death of a child,,,in front of parents, as those parents are literally burying him?
If the right to say anything, anywhere is so holy,, can we now make the most minor joke about bombs at airports? Can we say wear a fu@k Obama shirt to a rally? You DO know that even wearing a T-shirt that is obnoxious towards Bush, Obama, or any president will get you removed from a rally. Are we now allowed to pray at the supreme court steps?
Wear a T shirt to the next Obama rally saying “pray for the death of Obama”. See if you get the “Westboro legal protection”! Secret service will arrest you.
The supremes have made it official,,, the little people have to tolerate ANY insult no matter how depraved. Politicians cannot be insulted or molested.
“You really believe Governor Palin doesn’t understand the issue or the 1st Amendment?
—Aren’t you the guy, who just a few days ago, was trying to tell me that what Walker was doing with collective bargaining rights was blatantly “unconstitutional”... but you had no cases whatsoever to support your claim? And then you uttered some gibberish about Freedom of Assembly?
You know what they say about glass houses...
Levin agreed with Palin that the SCOTUS has made a hash of the First Amendment -- allowing free speech in some cases and restricting it in others, without being consistent in their rulings.
That is how I interpret Palin's comments, as well.
I think she's more frustrated at the double-standards and hypocrisy that SCOTUS uses on these rulings than being angry at the ruling itself. You can see the frustrated tone in her tweet. After all, they found a right to privacy somewhere in the margins of the Constitution that justifies the killing of our unborn children.
Where did Palin say it she didnt agree with the constitutional grounds
Frankly, everybody who sides with Westboro in this practice is a barbarian, a whoremonger or a POS.
They and their relatives should be entertained in similar fashion until they give it up.