High court rules for military funeral protesters

[NCAA Umpire]

So thought can make a crime a hate crime then, huh? That is a very dangerous road to travel.

Considering all such crimes are in someway based on hate, categorizing some as "hate crimes" is just wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

So thought can make a crime a hate crime then, huh? That is a very dangerous road to travel.

Considering all such crimes are in someway based on hate, categorizing some as "hate crimes" is just wrong.

Juries and courts address thought all the time in crime -- this is nothing new.

N o, they aren't "all... in someway [sic] based on hate".

 

[construct]

So thought can make a crime a hate crime then, huh? That is a very dangerous road to travel.

Legislating thought-crimes would indeed be a very dangerous road to travel, but that is not what hate-crime statutes are. They enhance penalties based on categorizations of motives. Motives involve thought, but thoughts are not crimes all by themselves. Hell, motives aren't even crimes all by themselves. Crimes require something other than mere motives. They require some sort of action.

Considering all such crimes are in someway based on hate, categorizing some as "hate crimes" is just wrong.

Is burglary to get drug money based on hate?



Edited to correct: I misread to interpret the first quote to refer to thought-crimes. Nevertheless, motives (or at least intent) are required for most felonies. Even intent is thought.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Isn't it wonderful that the strongest ally to most on this thread is now Justice Alito.

 

[construct]

Isn't it wonderful that the strongest ally to most on this thread is now Justice Alito.

I hadn't counted. Add me to the group who agree with the Court's opinion. My reasons have already been expressed by others in this thread.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I hadn't counted. Add me to the group who agree with the Court's opinion. My reasons have already been expressed by others in this thread.

I also agree with the eight. Maybe I've missed something but I thought the prevailing opinion was that the court "got it wrong".

Glad to see that you, construct, also support freedom of speech, as do I.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hadn't counted. Add me to the group who agree with the Court's opinion. My reasons have already been expressed by others in this thread.

Ditto that.

 

[NineOfClubs]

On one ruling.

Amazing.

Yeah, it is.

I bet you thought it would be Sotamayor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, it is.

I bet you thought it would be Sotamayor.

Not on this.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Not on this.

Kagen?

Or what other "liberal"? All of which went with the majority.

 

[construct]

Kagen?

Nor her either. It's really in line with liberal thought, both classical and contemporary. What would Thomas Jefferson have thought?

But I'm not surprised that so many here depart therefrom. One has to remember that we are members of a historically persecuted minority.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Nor her either. It's really in line with liberal thought, both classical and contemporary. What would Thomas Jefferson have thought?

But I'm not surprised that so many here depart therefrom. One has to remember that we are members of a historically persecuted minority.

OK, I give up.

Who then did you expect to rule otherwise?

Was Alito your first choice?

 

[construct]

OK, I give up.

Who then did you expect to rule otherwise?

Was Alito your first choice?

Frankly, I didn't expect any dissent at all.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Frankly, I didn't expect any dissent at all.

As one who approaches the constitution a certain way, neither did I.

But Alito would not have been the one I would have thought to dissent...

 

[Kulindahr]

I would have expected any dissent to come from Scalia, out of "patriotism" since these protests are directed against soldiers. Of course he wouldn't have said that, he would have found some "principle" supposedly in the Constitution, to argue from. If necessary, he would have made up "facts", as he's done before, to bolster his opinion.

 

[opinterph]

As one who approaches the constitution a certain way, neither did I.

But Alito would not have been the one I would have thought to dissent...

Alito’s views on free speech and privacy could make a great thread topic.


Jeffrey Rosen published an interesting overview about Alito in the Washington Post yesterday …

Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court's privacy cop

… Alito, however, appeared sympathetic to the California law. When Scalia said that the framers of the First Amendment never anticipated that the government could ban depictions of violence, Alito shot back in sarcasm: "What Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games."​

 

[Kulindahr]

Now all afternoon I'm going to be wondering what Madison would have thought of video games.

 

[frankfrank]

Now all afternoon I'm going to be wondering what Madison would have thought of video games.

Probably somewhat similar to what Milwaukee or Green Bay would think about video games.

 

[Jack Springer]

Thanks JockBoy.

One other question for all -- where do these people earn their money?

Find the source of their income and eliminate it.

Embarrass the heck out of the people who pay for their legal services.

Shirley Phelp's husband Brent Phelps has written textbooks on law office management and how to use software in legal offices. I wonder how many lawyers realize they are promoting WBC hate this way.

I did a quick search on google -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble sell his books.

Ask your lawyer if he has his books and why.

Cut off the money supply.

JockBoy - does the legal office where you work use the books written by Brent Rogers?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Alito’s views on free speech and privacy could make a great thread topic.


Jeffrey Rosen published an interesting overview about Alito in the Washington Post yesterday …

Makes me wonder if they'll be on opposite sides of the ruling in this case.