Posted on 09/14/2010 2:20:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC
Did the MSM reporter follow up and ask if bible-burning was not allowed under the 1st Amendment?
This is just nuts. It’s a book, a particularly evil book. I can burn any book I own. I can burn a science book. I can burn an encyclopedia. I can burn a dictionary. I can burn a book about Stalin, Che, Castro, whatever.
If I can’t burn my own book, we need a second revolution because private property rights are nonexistant.
So the constitutionality of our amendments is based on how many foreigners it pisses off...great;
Exactly what he is stating. Its the reaction that he seems to find pertinent and not the act itself. Therefore burning a bible,a flag are okay because the people that respect and love those things won’t riot over their desecration. This is not simply liberalism but capitulation as well.
Wow on the Breyer reasoning. Because Muslims have shown that they go ape-s**t about the Koran, burning it is the equivalent of the old “fire in a crowded theater” line? So the effect is that practitioners of religions that aren’t as ultra-violent don’t get the same protection of their sacred text from desecration. And THAT wouldn’t implicate other Constitutional protections as interpreted by his Court? Does he realize how his pithy line plays out?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Geeez. The list on the bottom one. LOL.
Breyer, why don’t you stick to ice cream!
The Supreme Court ruled that the American flag can be burned, yet a Koran cannot be burned, because it incites people????
Breyer is what you feared, a politically correct judge that changes with the winds. Whatever is in vogue.
That explains why Israel building in ‘disputed’ territories is a threat to the peace process, but Palestinians killing Israelis is not.
How could I have been so naive? </sarc>
No member of congress has the cajones to take on a sitting Supreme, much less getting a majority in the House to impeach and 2/3 of the Senate to convict.
What if the Judge that was impeached is the Chief Justice, who presides over the Senate proceedings? Hmmm......
In fact, the court goes a LONG WAY in narrowing (almost to the point of reversing perhaps even a de facto reversal) Schenck in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which essentially said it is constitutional to advocate for violence, just not incite violence. Breyer's entire interview can be found here. But, it's clear from watching it, he is laying some foundation to limit speech if that speech could be met with violence from dissenters. That is a deeply, deeply troubling position and a position I wouldn't think would be popular even in liberal circles.
It's amazing Breyer would comment on this at all, and even more amazing that he said what he said - quoting a case that has been, for all practical purposes, undone almost to the point of reversal.
You are being sarcastic, but too many elitists think exactly along those lines. And they wonder why we can’t be as “reasonable” as they are!
I'm thinking the Liberals in our Government and State Controlled Media are showing Christians what it takes to get their respect.
So just wait till the next so-called artist wants to display a crucifix in urine at the public library.
We should riot, call for the death of the artist, burn a bunch of replicas of Emmy's,Tony's or whatever their false god is they worship.
/sarcasm
“Burning flags is first amendment, burning Korans is a hate crime.”
Apparently, if people react violenetly to buring of a flag, it would no longer be protected.
Nice incentive you are creating there, Breyer.
This guy is an idiot.
oppressive censorship is bad when it is applied to libtards but good when applied to conservatives
“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”
Burnt korans, bombed mosques, etc.
I see ... but it’s okay to BURN the BIBLE and BURN the American Flag - that’s fine ... but NOT the vile Koran!
Just one, Samuel Chase from the 19th century. He was later acquitted in the Senate.
There was another AJ in the middle of last century, William O Douglas, that there were some impeachment noises made, but it never really got off the ground. I'm not sure if it even made it out of committee - it may have, I just don't remember.
What happens if one calls “Fraud!” in the Supreme Court Room?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.