Here's his reasoning :
"The church's outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."
Well, they ruled on Free Speech . . . much as we hate to see these clods get their way.
Can’t use that language on TV, can’t use the language in any classroom in America, but no problem at all to use that evil language against our military heroes.
Just damn damn damn.
Sorry Justice Alito but that's the same rationale used by Courts in England to fine and imprison people for criticizing homosexuality. No thanks.
The “church” in exercising their first amendment rights infringed on the father’s ability to exercise his right to practice his religion. The father has the right to bury his son with dignity in keeping with his religious practices.
And Fred Phelps has been honored multiple times by the racist outfit known as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored (ONLY) People and other commie organizations.
I believe the Supreme Court got this right. This same decision “should” continue to protect the rights of street corner preachers, as well as door-to-door witnessing for the Lord.
They should have sued Westboro for some specific infraction of law (if there was any) rather than from infringing their right to speak.
On the other hand, we may see folks unfortunately taking the law into their own hands and these “protestors” becoming targets for sniping. I think that municipalities can still limit their proximity to the funerals (such as 500 feet) - but how empty must a man’s soul be to revel in another’s grief.
The “pastor” of Westboro is actually a Democratic lawyer that thrives on lawsuits. The church has no membership apart from the seven or so members of the Phelps family and has no public services. The patriarch supported Al Gore during his presidential run. What more can be said.
Though the libera media will never admit it . . . these people are hate personified. If you ever see one of them interviewed, you can see the hate in their eyes and such hatred makes the possessor very ugly.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case, but what we need to do now is track these so called church clowns. When one of their members or a relative die, we go to their funeral and have a tailgate party. Complete with beer, BBQ, noise makers, hell throw in a couple of strippers while we are at it. Turnabout is fair play. Show these morons the same direspect they have shown our brave warriors.
Aren’t these protesters required by most city ordinances to obtain a permit first? If so, the locals can surely deny a protest in the same vacinity as a funeral procession due to traffic concerns. The protesters could then stage their protest after the funeral was over. Right?
There IS the right however to practice any kind of perversion you'd like in the military and to be brainwashed into accepting that if you're a military person who disagrees with that law.
Why in the world would anyone enlist in the US military???
That'd take a real moron nowadays.
But please. No more whining on FR anymore about these Phelps citizens and taxpayers. Nothing they do can any longer be considered outrageous since they're just practicing their constitutionally protected right of free speech so Freepers shouldn't have anything to say about it.
*puke*
BTW. I wonder what O'Reilly is going to say about this tonight? If I remember correctly he was saying that there was "no way" the Supreme Court would dare side with Westboro and shouted down anybody who tried to make the slippery slope argument as I did.
Alito’s statement isn’t reasoning; it is emotionalism. The principle in the Constitution is clear. It is interesting that Thomas voted with the majority because he was responsible early in his SCOTUS career for an atrocious anti-First Amendment decision involving a cross burning on private property.
Yes, it is more red tape for an already difficult event but the only way to keep creeps of all kinds from crashing a funeral. They would be trespassing and limited to access to public right of way only.
Eventually cemeteries would have to erect privacy walls from those public areas.
This is not the first bad decision the SCOTUS has made; nor will it be the last. But, as bad rulings, this is in the top ten. Now let them enforce the ruling.