As an atheist, I still believe that the right to worship whatever god you wish is a basic freedom that this government was established to protect. I also do not believe that the government should have the power to lock us in our homes, COVID or not.
To further establish a set of rules allowing people to leave for massages, dining out, or pedicures while prohibiting church services is an even larger violation. For that reason, I think that SCOTUS got it right in the Tandon decision. I also think that Roberts has been compromised. They have some kind of leverage against him.
Still, the left has GOT to demonize the Supreme Court so that they can get the kind of changes in the system that they are looking for. You see, they have discovered how to rig elections, but all of that is in jeopardy as long as there is a branch of government that can’t be replaced with rigged elections. That means that, if the Communists Democrats want to seize power, the judicial branch MUST be brought to heel.
SCOTUS will be eliminated in practice, if not in name. Expect to see the likes of Justice Obama, Justice Clinton, and justices who are even more extreme. For that reason, stories like this need to be written by the left.
In honor of our loss of one of the greatest speakers of my lifetime, I present to you Rush Limbaugh’s quote of the week:
What about feeling sorry for those who pay the taxes? Those are the people NO ONE ever feels sorry for. They are asked to give and give until they have no more to give. And when they say ‘Enough!’ they are called selfish.
If you watch the SNL open about the Chauvin trial, they are setting the stage for riots to follow the acquittal of Chauvin. They are already laying the groundwork to permit the riots that we all know would follow a not guilty verdict.
You see, all right thinking people are supposed to know that Chauvin is guilty, and the only reason for an acquittal is that the entire system is corrupt. It couldn’t be because the jury saw all of the evidence and decided that the state had not met its burden of proof. Nope, it has to be racism.
Make no mistake- Chauvin will eventually go to jail, even if the Feds have to get him for some charge that dodges double jeopardy, but that will be after the politicians get the riots that they are looking for.
It seems that a cop in Minnesota couldn’t tell the difference between her Taser and a pistol. Says CNBC contributor and attorney David Henderson: “I think that if officers can’t tell the difference between firearms and tasers, we need to re-evaluate whether or not they need to be carrying tasers.”
I disagree. If police officers can’t tell the difference between firearms and tasers, I don’t think that they should carry firearms. They are supposed to know the difference. Perhaps we could try Sheriff Taylor’s solution:
The “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” trope is worn out bullshit. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will drag this phrase out as proof of limits on the First Amendment before using that limit as an excuse to violate other rights. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is misunderstood. Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the case it comes from, U.S. v. Schenck, was overturned over 40 years ago.
U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires, theaters, or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. The pamphlet did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. All it did was express opposition to the draft.
The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:
It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”
The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. In fact, the statement was The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.
Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. Together, the three cases did more damage to First Amendment than any other set of cases in the 20th century.
It wasn’t until Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 that Schenck and any authority it carried was overturned. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (Note that this is the same reason why Trump can’t be prosecuted for what he said in his speech on January 6)
Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of government overreach have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. That quote is worse than useless in defining the boundaries of the limits on speech or on government tyranny. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any constitutional right. This is intellectually lazy and is outright dishonest.
Like the original case, this statement is being used by a tyrannical government that is using it to violate the rights of people who are on the wrong side of the political debate.
The US Navy ordering a pair of ships into the Black Sea is a mistake. Two ships can do nothing in Russia’s backyard but blunder the nation into an ill advised war that we are unprepared to fight.
As I type this, I am sitting in New Orleans. A pair of F-15s just flew down Canal street at the Mississippi River at an altitude low enough to read tail markings from the 20th floor of my hotel.
