Aug 17 2010

Dumb Judge Tricks

Published by at 8:06 am under All General Discussions

I have a lot of respect for the courts and law enforcement (much of my family have successful and valiant careers in this area). But there are on occasions the bad apple – or in this case the nimrod. Some confused judge confused the right to protest a government or a corporation with a mythical right to protest a family in grief:

A federal judge ruled Monday that Missouri laws restricting protests near funerals are unconstitutional.

Missouri legislators passed two laws in 2006 in response to protests at servicemembers’ funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The church contends the deaths are God’s punishment for the U.S. tolerating homosexuality.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan ruled the laws violate the right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Look, a family’s right to mourn their loss, pay their respects to a loved one, stands above the right of some sick whack jobs to protest the funeral. The individual has a right to privacy and peace of mind. This dimwit judge seems to have never understood what our Constitution says and stands for. There is no ‘right’ to abuse another human being physically – or emotionally.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “Dumb Judge Tricks”

  1. ivehadit says:

    Over and over today we see the “theory” of the law overriding the “intent” of the law.

    Imho, this president is a theorist who has utter contempt for the intent of our laws. He did not absorb American values, imho. For he has publically stated that our Constitution is only about what the government CANNOT do. Hello?

    It’s been a sad 574 days for America, imho.

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Dumb Judge Tricks […]

  3. WWS says:

    Same question as I posed in the thread about Roger Simon: if I bought a piece of property in Hyannissport, Ma., real visible, right on a main road – would this Judge defend my right to put up a statue of Sirhan Sirhan smiling and shaking hands with Lee Harvey Oswald? It’d be my constitutional right, wouldn’t it?

    Oh, you know the answer as well as I do.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    How come they were willing to allow Rauf to build this mosque; yet, some vet was ordered by a landloard to take down his US flag?

  5. soupy says:

    “How come they were willing to allow Rauf to build this mosque; yet, some vet was ordered by a landloard to take down his US flag?”

    Here’s the diplospeak answer:

    “Our unassailable position is that if we have in any way given offense to Basur, or if any action or policy of Terra or of individual Terrans appears in any way in conflict with her legitimate aspirations—”

    “How would you define ‘legitimate aspirations’?” Perry inquired in his mild tenor.

    “Why , traditionally, of course—in dealing with inferiors, anything whatsoever they may choose to do—particularly at our expense—is a legitimate aspiration.”

    From “The Troubleshooter” by Keith Laumer.

  6. Frogg1 says:

    Don’t states and localities have restrictions on protest locations, in general? You can’t hold a protest in the middle of a busy intersection, can you? Don’t they have to approve of the location, etc? So, why not at funerals?

  7. WWS says:

    We don’t seem to have the guts anymore to take care of this the way previous generations would have.

    It’s simple – next time there’s a protest about 20 guys with baseball bats need to go split skulls and bust knees and smash every camera in the area. And every policeman needs to know to stay far away, and everyone else needs to be willing to swear on their mother’s life that they don’t know nothing and didn’t see nothing. No arrests, no prosecutions, no evidence. Well, one exception – they could arrest the head of that clan for dirtying up their soil with his blood.

    It will only take one or two rounds of this and there won’t be any more protests.

    But like I said, we don’t have the collective nerve anymore that previous generations had.

  8. G Wolf says:

    G Wolf

    There is no question that this is not an unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court has long held that, while freedom of speech must be given its due, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on time and place, including as to political speech. This decision is asinine.

  9. KauaiBoy says:

    As to the mosque in NY, I hope someone has the good smarts to set up a vending cart right in front selling nothing but the wholesome goodness of American pork products. Sausage and bacon sandwiches, pork chops on a stick, pulled pork po-boys and some of them tasty crispy pork skins would go over nicely and help facilitate the healing that the nitwit Bloomberg says will come.

    WWS—we are not far from violent confrontation and we only have the good sense of that section of the population that hasn’t fallen for the politics of division. What we really need is effective economic warfare against those who would support the anti-American agenda. We see the power of the people in holding back in investing and spending in this economic environment (effectively saying no to socialism) and at the same time we see the powerlessness/ineptitude of government to create and/or foster a sustainable economy. Madoff’s ponzi scheme is small pototoes to what has been created by the government. But at least I can look forward to Pelosi being thrown down the stairs of Congress by the scruff of her neck—-what the Romans called keeping the masses entertained.

  10. KauaiBoy says:

    OOps — looks like I had a Dan Quayle moment