Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

I disagree with his conclusions, but it does not yet scare me. We are many many layers of cases and briefs, as Breyer points out, away from the opinion he's expressed to have any weight, and there's no telling by then, if it ever reaches that point, what his opinion might be.

scaeagles

09-15-2010 10:35 AM

Many layers, yes, but I could see this starting sooner rather than later.

It just REALLY scares me that a Supreme Court Justice thinks this way.

alphabassettgrrl

09-15-2010 11:02 AM

I disagree that offensive expression should be stifled; I think the pastor should absolutely be allowed to burn Qurans. I think it's an example of hideous sense, but we're talking permissible, not smart. Then again, yelling "Fire" in a theater and burning Qurans are both intended to incite people, which is slightly different than just expressing yourself.

So I don't know what the answer is. The problem with allowing the burning is that the reaction comes from overseas, where we have less ability to control things than here at home. Here at home, someone gets offended and steps out of line, we have laws that proscribe what they can and can't do.

But when someone in the Middle East gets offended, they're under other laws.

So it's something to keep an eye on, but I don't think we need to run for the hills yet.

Alex	09-15-2010 11:14 AM

It would "scare" me if it were actually ruled that way. But based on such a short quote out of a conversation I don't know that I am super bothered by it.

First, all of the Supreme Court justices hold opinions that I disagree with.

Second, it is essentially this man's job to think deeply about topics and see all the shades of gray. It is valid to muse on where the edges of "shouting fire in crowded theaters" exceptions to the First Amendment lie and how they might shift over time. I'd be extremely surprised if when a real case were before him, he supported such a weakening of the First Amendment. But I have no problem with him discussing the nuances of it all.

But yes, I'd consider it a travesty if the Supreme Court were to someday rule in favor of so broad a hecklers veto and to me there is no way igniting a quran (or a flag or a bible or a picture of the pope or drawing a picture of Mohammed sodomizing Mary Baker Eddy or etc.) is equivalent to shouting fire.

JWBear

09-15-2010 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles (Post 333511)

It just REALLY scares me that a Supreme Court Justice thinks this way.

There are many things that Scalia, Alioto, and Thomas think and say that terrify me.

Ghoulish Delight

09-15-2010 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles (Post 333511)

Many layers, yes, but I could see this starting sooner rather than later.

It just REALLY scares me that a Supreme Court Justice thinks this way.

Except nowhere in the limited quote provided does he say he's reached any sort of conclusion. The only thing it indicates is that there is an argument to be made that will need to be addressed and reasoned out. Sounds like what a judge is supposed to do to me.

alphabassettgrrl

09-15-2010 02:38 PM

I can certainly see the merits in talking about it.

Alex	09-16-2010 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles (Post 333506)

Should this scare me?

Does it scare you when Bill Kristol essentially says the same thing as he did here? (Though obviously, Bill Kristol has a infinitesimal actual importance compared to a Supreme Court justice).

I think Dahlia Lithwick does a good job thinking about what he said here.

Chernabog

09-21-2010 12:08 PM

Well god damn the stupid fvcking Republicans and their teabagger friends. God damn our stupid fvcking spineless President. God damn this stupid fvcking country, with liberty and justice for white heterosexual males.

That's my random political thought for today. :mad:

alphabassettgrrl

09-21-2010 02:08 PM

Ugh. Yeah. I'm not surprised, just saddened.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 AM.

Page 614 of 693