Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Care Bear-in-Chief made an ill-advised move to put the hammer – or more like a feather – down on SCOTUS. The hyperbole begins. Charges of “playing politics” fly from the mouths of some of the most partisan politicos the world has ever seen. It’s just another shite-storm in Rancorstan.
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS - What the hell, it's as good a reason as any. It's not like it means anything.
This is the last installment in our You Know You Might Be a (Fill in the Blank) If series. If you missed Parts 1 and 2, don’t forget to read:
You know you might be a moderate if you:
MICROSOFT OUTLOOK v. SCOTUS - Are the Supremes just an band of ancient techno-dolts or do they ask seemingly stupid questions for a reason? You can't read the scorecard without the televised instant replay.
Many people wonder why the Supreme Court refuses to allow cameras in court. A recent exchange between the justices and lawyers hearing a sexting case might provide some clues – the back and forth hypothetical nature of questioning sometimes sounds, well, just plain loopy.
In the sexting case, the legal question was whether police officers could have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using their department-supplied pagers to text sexy messages to one another. Some of the justices asked questions that, on the surface, sounded as though they had graduated at the bottom of the class at the Ted Stevens University of Information Technology.
At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts asked about the difference between, “email and a pager”. Justices also asked what happened when two texts arrive at the same time. “Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?” Justice Stevens asked. “Could Quon [one of the defendants] print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.
One explanation for these somewhat surreal exchanges might be that even the middle aged Roberts understands little more about information technology than his more elderly peers. The other might be that Roberts and the other justices asked the questions not because they were oblivious, but because there was some rhetorical reason while arguing the case. Without the context a camera could provide, we lay people don’t know and, in fact, question what the hell is wrong with someone asking about the difference between email and a pager in the 21st Century.
The assumption in some media outlets was the Roberts and the rest of the SCOTUS gang were just plain stupid and I must admit I’m hard pressed to find a reason for Roberts’ question, reasonable or otherwise.
Most of the stories today didn’t give SCOTUS the benefit of the doubt. It makes for a more compelling story than assuming they really do know that they’re doing. I’m sure the justices were embarrassed by the tenor of the stories. No one likes to look like an idiot in front of the world and it might legitimately be a lack of understanding on the reporters’ part.
Perhaps, this is a subject the justices should reconsider in their own court. Is it worse to reveal the legal sausage making and potential embarrassment of open, televised court where a video feed might clarify things? Or, is it better to let people make their own conclusions about subjects that many of them are clueless about, even with the help of video technology?
If I was a justice, I’m afraid it would be a split decision.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d21fcbe6-a390-401b-a7d8-ec28043e1558)
SMITE THEM GOD, SMITE THEM - Westboro's God Hates Fags campaign is an embarrassment to humanity. Yet they have the right to make idiots of themselves...even if we do want to smack them down.
There are few things as repugnant as Westboro Baptist’s “God Hates Fags” screeds at military funerals. It’s an understandable impulse to want to thump these yahoos to within an inch of their putrid lives, but if you do, expect to do some time in the pokey. Free speech is allowed, violence isn’t.
The Supreme Court will soon hear the question of whether free speech protections cover Westboro’s lunatic fringing. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.
Cases like this pose a constitutional dilemma. For the most part – save the whole “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” question – I favor letting people say what they want. Free speech doesn’t mean free to anyone I don’t think is stupid, rude, or just plain wrong. It means free…for everyone…even if they are ignorant pootieheads.
Defending the Rights of the Asshatted
I recently defended the right of gay rights opponents to say what they want and received some not unexpected fallout for my trouble. Several commenters took a zero-tolerance line – they said it’s never OK to oppose anything as important as gay rights…period. However, you could just as easily turn that around to say it’s never OK for Republicans to speak either. No matter how much I fantasize about stopping their unending, infernal chants of NO it would be clearly unconstitutional and just plain wrong. The offense in Westboro’s case owes a lot to where you and your opponents stand.
The Constitution presupposes there is someone on either side who is rational and feels as strongly about others’ rights as they do their own. It assumes these people will speak and not poke each other in the nose. It assumes that words don’t cause permanent damage regardless of how insulting and wrong you may feel they are.
But cases like the Westboro Association of Pinheads’ picketing the funerals of innocent, grieving bystanders who have nothing to do with their “issue” seems to go a step farther. Is this the point where the right of grieving families and friends should be protected from a group if nimrods who have no respect for others? After all, my general rule is that exercising your right is OK as long as you don’t impinge on someone else’s right to exercise theirs. Not respecting their rights takes you one step closer to their values, not farther away.
GOD, ARE YOU LISTENING? - God needs a better PR person on Earth. Fred Phelps and his ilk are damaging God's brand.
The Slippery Slope
My first impulse is to squash them like the vermin they are. However, in the back of my mind I keep hearing a constitutional voice whispering that depriving Westboro of their idiotic fun may be the first in a series of slip slides down a mucky slope.
Who gets to make these decisions? What are the criteria? How much does asshatery cost per pound when compared with the cost of individual freedom? It’s too simple to just say STFU and be done with it. As clear-cut as it may appear, it’s anything but.
As with many issues, there isn’t a good black and white answer and I don’t profess to have one. At the end of the day, the Supremes will make a decision. In all likelihood, Congress will pass more legislation and the Supremes will have to retest the new version of Constitutional right and wrong. No doubt, this question will come back up repeatedly, if for no other reason than the Westboro loons are unlikely to stop until their God snatches up the last of them and casts them into a lake of fire. This is the juncture between the letter of the law and its common sense application.
The whole sordid affair makes me long to go back to my original thought and thump the stupid bastards to within an inch of their crapulent lives.
But that’s not Constitutional either.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=35decde3-4501-4052-b9c0-cd65a164d960)
