[Bigtigermike]

Like i said yesterday she was talking about the inconsistencies and double standards of court rulings and i was laughed at! She wrote it and still some here ran off with what headliners said instead of what she actually said! What a shame for some on here!

[pissant]

It was hilarious to see the confusion amongst the Palintards last night.

[trumandogz]

“Palin said she agreed with the ruling in favor of the church”

Interesting.

[Truth101A]

I knew what she meant. Anybody that follows Gov. Palin knew what she was commenting on. Only the liberal pea brain would interpret it a different way like that clown at TPN. There are not enough characters on twitter for the pie brain liberals to interpret anything the right way.

What am I saying?? The liberal pie brains can’t interpret anything the right way.

[tsowellfan]

Sarah Palin would make a great President but as a candidate... this pattern of day after clarifications on what she really meant has not gone unnoticed and would be the doom of her run for President. To continuously have to go on interviews the next day to explain what she really meant the day before will not cut it against Obama.

It's a sign of unpreparedness to run for President. This is a shame because she is very qualified to be President of the United States.

Unfortunately this weakness of hers to fail to make her point the first time around will cause misinterpretations by those many voters who do not follow politics as closely as we do. They will misinterpret this weakness of hers to be a sign of being "unqualified" to be President of the United States.

[BigSkyFreeper]

She should give it a rest and stop pretending to be the smartest one in the room.

[Maelstorm]

There are double standards. I didn’t find Palin’s statement confusing. As for limits to “freedom of speech” well there are limits. Freedom of speech has not until modern times become the license to put forth into the public space every form of vulgarity and obscenity. That said we are faced with an aggressive liberal effort to limit political speech labeled as hate speech and such which is very dangerous. However I don’t believe freedom of speech extends to a private funeral and I do believe that individuals should be able to designate funerals as private closed events with barriers setup to make sure that attendees are not faced with people like the Westboro people. I feel the same about protests at houses of political figures. You may have a right to speech but you don’t have the right to block public streets or harass people especially in a private venue though the left after Prop 8 passage did all those things.

I think conservatives have made a mistake by not sticking to the traditional definition of freedom of speech and instead falling for what is essentially a liberal bastardization of what was essentially protection for political speech as a source of dissemination of information which of course the left are keen to limit where as they are willing to have whatever range of nastiness in the public space provided you are not mean to their pet nasties.

[surfer]

I really hope this is what she believes when I first heard about this...it was really the final straw for me with her. I had huge hope for her but it is slipping away.

[tuckrdout]

What would be wrong with disagreeing with the SCOTUS? It is contemptable what those freaks are doing at funerals. I believe they were very wrong.

What they do is not free speech. As Alito said, it is a verbal assault. It is cruel and wicked speech aimed to hurt those who are already suffering. It isn’t meant to make a point, it is meant to hurt.

Another reason that Sarah is not ready for the Resolute Desk, in my opinion.

[upsdriver]

As Rush always has to say, “for those of you in Rio Linda”, so does Sarah Palin. Some people just aren’t smart enough to understand and need to have simple statements explained to them in great detail.

[jla]

Palin clarifies statement on Supreme Court ruling: ‘I wasn’t calling for any limit..'

Anyone who can read & comprehend English already knew this. But since it's Sarah Palin - up becomes down, bright becomes dark, a sphere now deemed a hexagon.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Mark Levin agrees completely with her and I'm pretty sure he knows a lot more about the issue than FR's in-house PDS/Paul-bot "constitutional scholars."

From Wednesday night's show...

— BEGIN TRANSCRIPT —

Well, the Supreme Court ruled today in an 8-1 decision, Justice Alito being the dissenter, that the inbred types — I don’t know that they are; they just appear that way and sound that way to me so I’m not saying it factually — that the Westboro Baptist Church have the right through free speech to interfere with funerals of..our soldiers killed in the line of duty.

I knew it would be a tough case, no question about it. The Supreme court has made a mess of free speech in the First Amendment, as it has most of the Constitution quite frankly. But I would like to ask the 8 justices a question, not an emotional question, a factual question and see how that might fit into their analysis:

If the Westboro Baptist Church members, all 12 of them, went on public property in a public elementary school where they are holding pre-school, nursery school, and they stay outside but they go up to the window and they scream the things that they scream at these funerals...would that be unconstitutional?

I’m just wondering, because the Court has ruled in classroom cases that you don’t have absolute free speech because of, you know, issues like discipline. How are you going to teach kids if they can jump up, say, in high school or middle school or what-have-you and start screaming things, claiming first Amendment rights? So, if the inbreds are screaming them through the window, or let’s say they’re 100 yards away from the window but they’re on school property and they’re screaming these things at nursery school children, would that matter? What would you do? I’m just curious.

Now you’re going to hear a lot and read a lot about ‘this is a great decision for the First Amendment.’ Let me explain something: I am very much a purist when it comes to the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court is not. The Supreme Court has a variety of tests depending on what kind of speech it is. For instance, if the core part of the speech is political expression, it has a higher test if you want to limit it or control it or regulate it. Umm, there’s other forms of speech that are highly protected with copyrights and so forth. Obscenity is less protected depending on what type it is, like pornography and so forth. Whether the speech creates an immininent threat of danger, clear and present. Imminent lawless action. And I already told you about the school situation. So there’s all kinds of tests, factual scenarios where the Court comes out differently because it’s made a hash, as we say, of the free speech part of the First Amendment as with most of the First Amendment.

And yet in this one instance, this one instance with all those exceptions, with all those tests, they couldn’t find one here. I’ll be perfectly honest with you...if I were a Justice I sure as hell would have looked for one, or scrapped them all.

You can’t tell me a fidelity to ‘Congress shall make no law regulating free speech’ that you have complete fidelity to that when you don’t.

The question is, always, where do you draw the line? To what extent can the government intervene? I understand that. To what extent can another party challenge the “speech of another party” on public property? But it seems to me if disrupting a classroom is a test, then disrupting a funeral of a killed soldier comes close enough.

I know I’m upsetting a lot of people who are purists. And I’m saying if the Supreme Court wants a purist test — OK. But they don’t. Where are all those tobacco ads on television? They were banned. Our Judiciary has upheld those bans. They uphold all kinds of bans on commercial speech. ‘Can’t have this kind of ad because it applies to kids.’ We have bans on pornography. OK, I got it. And as I said, students are not free in public school or government schools to jump up in the middle of class and attack gays or attack anyone or make demands or what-have-you because you can’t possibly run a school system that way, can you? So the Court makes adjustments, but not here. It was very rigid. I mean I can’t, other than what they’re written which is pretty much pro-forma to be honest with you, I can’t delve into everybody’s thinking.

But take campaign laws: One of the things the Founders clearly intended to protect was free political speech, yet we have all kinds of rules that apply to free political speech. We have limits on how much you can contribute. They say that’s different than how much you can spend. We prohibit certain entities of people, like corporations, from making direct contributions to individuals. Why is that? Because the Court decided, that’s why. Congress said, prohibit it. Court said, fine. Why? Well, they just did. And yet that is core political speech, fundamental to the First Amendment and free speech. Yet they regulate it. Why?

So please don’t lecture me on purity of the First Amendment when I can tell you case after case after case when the Court has not held that way. Even though, even though it is one of the aspects of the First Amendment that has been less molested than other aspects of other amendments and the rest of the Constitution. But still, they’ve created quite a muddle, haven’t they?

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.

— END TRANSCRIPT —

[Earthdweller]

Remind me to protest the next graduation that refuses to let students pray. I will be holding up a sign that says ‘Thank God for stressed out teachers and smart students with no morals’.

[K-Stater]

Obviously Bristol is not the only Palin who can tap-dance like crazy.

[who knows what evil?]

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew what she meant in the first place.

[9YearLurker]

I love Sarah, want her to be our next president, but I don’t like her commenting on complex issues, such as this decision, with a tweet that necessarily reads like a text message from Willow. In that tweet, she actually expressly criticized this decision as lacking in common sense and decency. She didn’t say that this difficult but correct decision highlights how wrong the extremity of the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause.

[LibFreeUSA]

-"What a shame for some on here!"

They are diluted in disliking (and hating) Palin as much as the radical libtards. It 'is' a shame!

They dislike Palin so much, that it clouds their objective reasoning. Just like it does to the libtards.

[Texas Eagle]

The media got it wrong? Now THERE’S something new under the sun.

[Gargantua]

"...i said yesterday she was talking about the inconsistencies and double standards of court rulings and i was laughed at!"

The Alinskyites, O'Bunghole Moles, and chicken-sh*t Lefty Trolls (who haunt here without the sac required to announce their true allegiences) understand that ridiculing something you can't defeat goes a long way toward neutralizing its potency. Sadly, many PDS "conservatives" have adopted these same filthy, rancid tactics in assailing Sarah because, absent the deception inherent in that ploy, they have nothing else they could rationally hold against her.

When they ridicule and laugh at you, just smile a little smile to yourself... because in fact, all they have actually just done... is admitted that you were right.

;-)

[exit82]

Gee, the PDS sufferers on this forum didn’t have a problem when Palin went out into space and supported Tea Party candidates while the rest of the GOP had their fingers up their rear end.

You can thank Palin that John Boehner and not Nancy Pelosi is not the Speaker of the House today. Not Huckabee, not Romney, not anyone else—Sarah Palin.

The election of 2012 may be the final one for America. That’s how high the stakes are.

None of the GOP candidates have the courage that Palin has.

And they will wither under the attacks that the Communist Obama and his minions in the DNC and press will unleash.

Do you think Romney, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, or any of the GOP leaders could withstand that?

Palin eats that for breakfast and is still hungry.

My God, people, we better get over Sarah Palin and her supposed deficiencies. She is in the arena everyday, and I haven’t seen any pattern of clarifications necessary.

She is the ONLY person who exposes Obama on a regular basis—and she does it with a Reagan like quality.

She is the only hope for this Republic, so by all means, savage her at will, you merry band of PDS varmints.

She isn’t perfect, but she will beat Obama senseless in a campaign in which she is not shackled by the likes of John McCain—Loser, Arizona.

She’s President No. 45. I only pray she will accept her destiny to bring this country back to greatness.

[altura]

Me, too. I understood what she meant immediately, and agreed with her.

I think it was mostly the anti-Palin crowed that jumped on her twit as a reason to dislike her.

Actually, I wish she wouldn’t do twitter. I don’t. It’s too hard to make one’s point in so few words.