Funeral protesters sued

[Trent 0]

Quote

I do a lot of research for the ACLU, and I can assure you that "picking the side that hurts the US the most" is not what they do.

I admit, that's me trying to piss people off. But they do choose cases based on their socialistic left-wing agenda quite frequently, don't they?

Quote

They spend most of their time protecting the liberty interests of individuals and groups. Do you know what a liberty interest is? It's all of those things in the Bill of Rights. It's a term of art, used by Constitutional scholars.

Typical lawyerly condescension noted and appreciated. I think it's funny that people actually think that you need a degree in law to understand the constitution and the bill of rights. I guess everyone has to find their way to squeeze a living out of the world.

Anyway... how does defending child-molesters, pushing for legalized abortion, and suing for rights for illegals NOT guaranteed by the Constitution amount to defending the Constitutional rights of anyone?

Quote

I realize that you don't think illegal immigrants should be afforded any of these liberty interests, outside basic human rights. Well, get ready to suck it up, cupcake. Zaidyvidas v. Davis guarantees substantive due process to illegal aliens residing in this country.

How does giving due process and basic human rights translate into suing against things like proposition 187? Preventing access to public schools, drivers licenses and even local voting? My point, cupcake, is not about illegals, it just seems to have been the magic button for you guys, but is about the ACLU and their agenda riddled, hypocritical bullshit work. For every legitimate good they've done... there's more crap. I mean... what did the founder say?

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Nice. Glad to see some of you guys are in love with that kind of organization.

Oh, hello again!

[kelpdiver 2]

> OK, where are these rights written, enumerated or otherwise given?

You can start with the Declaration of Independence.

As to your pathetic attempt at transcribing the 2nd, posting the same BS 4 or 5 times won't make your misdefinitions of key words any more accurate.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Typical lawyerly condescension noted and appreciated. I think it's funny that people actually think that you need a degree in law to understand the constitution and the bill of rights. I guess everyone has to find their way to squeeze a living out of the world.

Anyway... how does defending child-molesters, pushing for legalized abortion, and suing for rights for illegals NOT guaranteed by the Constitution amount to defending the Constitutional rights of anyone?

I'm sorry my post seemed condescending. Believe me, no one would accuse you of condescension.

I'm not saying (and never have) that anyone needs a degree in law to understand the Constitution. I am, however, saying that people who have advanced degrees in law understand it better than most, because much of the practice of law involves interpreting the Constitution and statutes. I do not have an advanced degree in law yet. The Constitution isn't just a bunch of words that have one meaning for everyone. It's not that simple. If you think it is that simple, and that you understand the Constitution as well or better than people who have J.D.s and M.M.As then...well...that's a nice little bubble you have there.

As for who they defend, the ACLU defends civil liberties. They do that by taking the side of people who have their civil liberties violated. It's not about what these people have done, it's about what the government and other people are doing to them. I know it's a hard concept that civil liberties apply to ANYONE and EVERYONE on US soil, but they do. Even child molestors, abortion activists, and illegal immigrants. If you took a look at the case I posted above, you'll see that the US Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants have substantive due process rights, which takes me to your second question:

Quote

How does giving due process and basic human rights translate into suing against things like proposition 187? Preventing access to public schools, drivers licenses and even local voting?

In Marbury v. Madison, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court said that for every right, there must be a remedy. Therefore, for every remedy, there must be a right. The case I posted above effectively gave illegal immigrants a remedy for substantive due process violations: they can use our court system to get some sort of justice. The rights for which the remedy exists are liberty interests, because Constitutional scholars have agreed that whenever there is a substantive due process right, there is a liberty interest. Liberty interests are things guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and those privacy concerns which the Supreme Court has agreed are implicit in the Bill of Rights.

Anyway, I'm done explaining the Constitution to you, Trent. If you don't believe everyone in the US deserves the rights guaranteed by it, then it's obvious that we'll never agree. The difference between us is that I agree with the Supreme Court, and that there is no basis in US law at all for your conclusions.

Some of us don't agree with the ACLU's founder's remarks. We just see some of the injustices which the government has wrought on today's society, and get involved in ACLU cases which attempt to correct them. That's what I do, anyway. And it satisfies my pro bono credit.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[Trent 0]

Quote

I'm sorry my post seemed condescending. Believe me, no one would accuse you of condescension.

How could an ignorant guy like myself even fathom condescension towards the likes of the intellectual elite and almost-lawyers?

Here's a quick joke, that I've found pretty true in many cases:

-What's the difference between God and a lawyer?
-God doesn't think he's a lawyer.

Quote

I'm not saying (and never have) that anyone needs a degree in law to understand the Constitution. I am, however, saying that people who have advanced degrees in law understand it better than most, because much of the practice of law involves interpreting the Constitution and statutes.

Silly me. Here I am thinking that if the founding fathers meant to put something in the constitution... it would have been put in there. I also think that suing because something is "unconstitutional" is ridiculous when there are absolutely no mentions of it in the constitution... something that my ignorant interpretation of the 10th means that it's state territory. So if the ACLU defends the constitution, why are they going to federal courts to sue over things that should be state laws? I'm sure that there's some interpretation that is taught that will justify it since it keeps lawyers working.

Your Marbury v Madison example still doesn't explain the "rights" that the ACLU thinks that illegals have... OUTSIDE of due process in criminal courts. It's like you're avoiding what I've actually said so you can talk about due process, which I'm not arguing.

Quote

Anyway, I'm done explaining the Constitution to you, Trent. If you don't believe everyone in the US deserves the rights guaranteed by it, then it's obvious that we'll never agree. The difference between us is that I agree with the Supreme Court, and that there is no basis in US law at all for your conclusions.

You must then agree that illegals should have the right to bear arms. You also must agree that criminals should as well, and they should be able to vote too. You should also agree that abortion, gay marriage and things like that belong only in state courts.

Quote

We just see some of the injustices which the government has wrought on today's society, and get involved in ACLU cases which attempt to correct them.

Injustices like Megan's Law? While the concept of the ACLU is shrouded in good intentions... well, some smart man (smarter than ignorant lil me) said the roud to hell was shrouded in the same manner.

Oh, hello again!

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Your Marbury v Madison example still doesn't explain the "rights" that the ACLU thinks that illegals have... OUTSIDE of due process in criminal courts. It's like you're avoiding what I've actually said so you can talk about due process, which I'm not arguing.

Actually, my Marbury v. Madison analysis does explain why illegals have rights. I suggest you go read it again, and pay special attention to the part about due process equalling a liberty interest.

Quote

You must then agree that illegals should have the right to bear arms. You also must agree that criminals should as well, and they should be able to vote too. You should also agree that abortion, gay marriage and things like that belong only in state courts.

uh...you're right. I do believe all of those things. And there are good arguments for believing the way I do. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong or stupid.

I'm done here.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[billvon 3,132]

>How could an ignorant guy like myself even fathom condescension
>towards the likes of the intellectual elite and almost-lawyers?

You're right, those damn experts think they know it all. Why just a few weeks ago, I listened to Brian Germain tell people about parachute flying. He even disagreed with someone with 200 jumps who was toggle hooking! Arrogant guy thinks he knows more than real everyday jumpers.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> OK, where are these rights written, enumerated or otherwise given?

You can start with the Declaration of Independence.

As to your pathetic attempt at transcribing the 2nd, posting the same BS 4 or 5 times won't make your misdefinitions of key words any more accurate.

And Lucky - we have more rights than those listed in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns, it merely affirms it. As a leftie you should know this.

OK, so where in the D of I does it give us inalienable, irrevokable rights of gun ownership? Spell it out, it's your assertion.

As to your pathetic attempt

Quote

Resorting ot that? Sad.

As to your pathetic attempt at transcribing the 2nd, posting the same BS 4 or 5 times won't make your misdefinitions of key words any more accurate.***

Don't talk about it, define it as Nealtx did, which I will finish and post later on tonight. Misdefinitions; post how.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Silly me. Here I am thinking that if the founding fathers meant to put something in the constitution... it would have been put in there. I also think that suing because something is "unconstitutional" is ridiculous when there are absolutely no mentions of it in the constitution... something that my ignorant interpretation of the 10th means that it's state territory. So if the ACLU defends the constitution, why are they going to federal courts to sue over things that should be state laws? I'm sure that there's some interpretation that is taught that will justify it since it keeps lawyers working.

There's so much they couldn't have known. It wasn't even 1800 for god's sake, so how could they know that slavery was a bad thing. We figured it out on teh 1860's, 13th Amendment, but the Bill of Rights was a rough start and there's no way we can hold them accountable for such a roughly written document. Also, the word "privacy" wasn;t there either...... rough document.

Furthermore, women coldn't vote for almost 150 years after the writing of the BoR, so how fcuked a document is that? The doument reflected those times, but they couldn;t be held to forsee what we have today or the tomorrows to come.

Quote

I also think that suing because something is "unconstitutional" is ridiculous when there are absolutely no mentions of it in the constitution...

Check the living constitution. Youc an find it in all appellate decisions. Liek it or not, that is the constitution.

[Trent 0]

Quote

You're right, those damn experts think they know it all. Why just a few weeks ago, I listened to Brian Germain tell people about parachute flying. He even disagreed with someone with 200 jumps who was toggle hooking! Arrogant guy thinks he knows more than real everyday jumpers.

Hey, you're right... we should stop trying to think for ourselves and let others do it for us. Especially when someone tells us that something is okay, even though we know it might be popular or legal, but not right. We should merely accept and produce. All Hail the Claw!

Or we could just wait until someone answers our questions as to why something that ostensibly exists to defend constitutional rights... is out there pushing for "rights" that aren't in the constitution.

Have you ever disagreed with a Supreme Court decision? How would you like it if someone told you that you were ignorant because you couldn't possibly understand the issue enough to disagree?

Oh, hello again!

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

After reading your message we did a quick google on the Phelps clan.

You left off Fred Jr. and his dead girlfriend and the missing mother of said dead girlfriend.

Wonderful group of people. (fuckers)

I guess this has turned into a debate of "rights" verses "right or wrong".

J

Hi J

We just did a real quick google on Papa Fred. His autobio has a real nice pic and leaves out a lot of info from other sources.

Sons Dead girlfriend and missing moma for some reason I'm not surprised. Just not worth my time doing research on the Papa Fred. would be interesting to see what happened if his "church" of hate" lost their tax free status.

Looks to me like some people in SC who can type real fast want to dazzle ea other with thier intellect and wisdom so they can bait ea. Sorry I'm not impressed

"Right"? Lets not forget about the commie pinko "Left" wing liberals.

SC Why did I expect anything different.

R.I.P.

[Trent 0]

Quote

There's so much they couldn't have known. It wasn't even 1800 for god's sake, so how could they know that slavery was a bad thing. We figured it out on teh 1860's, 13th Amendment, but the Bill of Rights was a rough start and there's no way we can hold them accountable for such a roughly written document.

Sure we can, that's why they made it so it could be amended. If amendments are passed on "your" side or "my" side, the conversation is rendered moot. I just don't think that we have a constitutional right to things like abortions, public services for illegals, etc. Note that that doesn't mean I'm for or against any of them... it just means that I don't think it's a constitutional issue.

Quote

Also, the word "privacy" wasn;t there either...... rough document.

No, but the 4th is pretty clear. Which is evidence that the muddying of the Constitution from either side isn't a good thing. I bet the ACLU wishes that one amendment was interpreted literally. Too bad they think everything else is flexible though, makes them look hypocritical.

Quote

Furthermore, women coldn't vote for almost 150 years after the writing of the BoR, so how fcuked a document is that? The doument reflected those times, but they couldn;t be held to forsee what we have today or the tomorrows to come.

Did it, prior to the amendments, prohibit women and blacks from voting?

Quote

Check the living constitution. Youc an find it in all appellate decisions. Liek it or not, that is the constitution.

Don't use a controversial idea as a bottom line. You know that issue is debated even among the justices in the supreme court.

Oh, hello again!

[wmw999 2,600]

Hmmm. I did all my reading in Wikipedia, and I missed the part about the mother having gone missing.

Frankly, I'd say that Fred Phelps is as evil as they come, in large part for what he's done to his children, and their children after them. Just as Saddam Hussein took children who were born with potential and turned them into monsters, so has Fred Phelps in a different way.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,132]

>Have you ever disagreed with a Supreme Court decision?

Yep. I've even disagreed with Brian Germain on some things.

>How would you like it if someone told you that you were ignorant
>because you couldn't possibly understand the issue enough to
>disagree?

I'd ignore them. Of course, if Brian said something about parachute design and I said "Typical rigger condescension noted and appreciated. I think it's funny that people actually think that you need to design parachutes to understand the construction and piloting of ram-air canopies. I guess everyone has to find their way to make a quick buck." - then I'd probably be ignored too.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You must then agree that illegals should have the right to bear arms. You also must agree that criminals should as well, and they should be able to vote too. You should also agree that abortion, gay marriage and things like that belong only in state courts.

uh...you're right. I do believe all of those things. And there are good arguments for believing the way I do. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong or stupid.

You believe felons should be able to vote and own guns, despite proving that they're unreliable in respecting the rights of others?

I don't believe states should be able to restrict basic rights like health care or marriage, either.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I fully support freedom of expression wherever reasonable

"fully" is contradicted by "wherever reasonable."

Likewise, "freedom of expression" can't be reconciled with some fuzzy standard of reasonable.

Freedom isn't free. Morally it has responsibilities, but legally it means taking the bad with the good.

Taken to extreme that can mean that if I am a racist I have the right to speak use racial slurs when talking to minorities in any environment. Is there a point where you might feel that ones freedom to express themselves crosses the line into harrasment, or is anything fair game? I find sometimes what is frustrating about these discussions is that people see everything from a black and white dogmatic interpretation of our rights without any consideration for responsibilities.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Actually, my Marbury v. Madison analysis does explain why illegals have rights. I suggest you go read it again, and pay special attention to the part about due process equalling a liberty interest.

It'd have been easier to just argue the 9th amendment angle. Marbury v Madison and Zadvydas v Davis are a quite roundabout way of getting to the point, unless we're only talking about due process in criminal cases, which I've said many times... is not the only thing I'm talking about. I still don't see how illegals having a "right" to public services (NOT DUE PROCESS) or someone having a "right" to an abortion or a gay marriage are constitutional issues. It might have been better if you'd just explained that instead of letting me know how ignorant I must be if I don't see it your way.

Quote

uh...you're right. I do believe all of those things. And there are good arguments for believing the way I do. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong or stupid.

Apart from thinking that illegals and criminals having a right to bear arms and having criminals vote is a good thing... we don't disagree then. I think abortion and this marriage mess belong in state courts.

And just because I see and interpret things differently than someone else, doesn't make me wrong or stupid either. Just for the record, I never accused you of being stupid.

Oh, hello again!

[kelpdiver 2]

your rights extend to the point where they directly interfere with the rights of others. Hence, encouraging the shootings of abortion doctors crosses the line. Same with workplace discrimination. Those can be defined. But your version of 'reasonable' is vague and different from anyone else's version. People do *not* have a right to not be upset.

Out in public- you can use all the racial slurs you want. Haven't you ever gotten the White Power/Skinhead/Nazi propoganda sheets with the age old bits about blacks having skulls like apes? Or the Jew conspiracy to control the rest of us? It's ridiculous, a tired cliche, offensive as can be, and perfectly legal.

The solution to bad speech is more speech, not no speech. It is pretty much black and white because if you grey it too far, we lose the ability to speak out against illegal wars and actions by our government.

[Trent 0]

Quote

I'd ignore them. Of course, if Brian said something about parachute design and I said "Typical rigger condescension noted and appreciated. I think it's funny that people actually think that you need to design parachutes to understand the construction and piloting of ram-air canopies. I guess everyone has to find their way to make a quick buck." - then I'd probably be ignored too.

Bill, you're a smart guy... I bet you have a pretty good idea of how parachutes are constructed and flown. If someone who made parachutes came along and told you that you couldn't possibly understand how they worked because you don't spend all your time doing it... I'd expect you to defend yourself a bit. Then, if they told you that "this design is the best," when you know that there are other designs that are really close if not better in your opinion... I'd expect you to say so.

The funny thing is... the very fact that there were or will be court cases on any issues like this is evidence that there is at least 2 sides to each argument. Because I'm on one side... I'm ignorant. I got it. Oh, and if I don't agree with the way a judge rules, I just don't get it. I'd need a law degree to have an opinion.

But then, you're trying to compare a science with something completely different and interpretive by design. Why would you do that?

Oh, hello again!

[Richards 0]

Quote

your rights extend to the point where they directly interfere with the rights of others. ***

But by deliberately targetting the funerals and yelling over bullhorns so the mourners cannot hear the funeral services are they not by that definition interfering with the rights of others.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

• Quote

[kallend 2,180]

Quote

Quote

your rights extend to the point where they directly interfere with the rights of others. ***

But by deliberately targetting the funerals and yelling over bullhorns so the mourners cannot hear the funeral services are they not by that definition interfering with the rights of others.

Richards

Which rights would those be? Is there a right to a peaceful funeral?
(Not that I'm defending the Phelps folks' actions in any way - I think they are ill mannered ignorant boorish louts).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

your rights extend to the point where they directly interfere with the rights of others. ***

But by deliberately targetting the funerals and yelling over bullhorns so the mourners cannot hear the funeral services are they not by that definition interfering with the rights of others.

Richards

Which rights would those be? Is there a right to a peaceful funeral?.

I'll go out on a bit of a limb and say "Yes". If I was arguing on behalf of the deceased's family seeking an injunction, I'd argue: Certainly there is a right to a funeral. And a funeral is more than merely reciting some words and prayers and placing a body at physical rest. Peace and quiet dignity for the mourners are integral and necessary elements of a graveside service. If the mourners are deprived of that peace & quite dignity at the gravesite, then they are effectively being deprived of their right to conduct a funeral.

I think the laws some states are passing to keep demonstrators a certain minimum distance away from a graveside service, while hardly a perfect solution, and frought with some pitfalls, may be the "least worst" way to strike a balance between the family's right (as I see it) to a peaceful funeral and a demonstrator's right to public speech.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think the laws some states are passing to keep demonstrators a certain minimum distance away from a graveside service, while hardly a perfect solution, and frought with some pitfalls, may be the "least worst" way to strike a balance between the family's right (as I see it) to a peaceful funeral and a demonstrator's right to public speech.

seems to be an approach, though 300ft from the entrance to the cemetary seems grossly excessive.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Which rights would those be? Is there a right to a peaceful funeral?
(Not that I'm defending the Phelps folks' actions in any way - I think they are ill mannered ignorant boorish louts).

[Richards 0]

Quote

seems to be an approach, though 300ft from the entrance to the cemetary seems grossly excessive.

[kelpdiver 2]

if you allow free speech only where no one can hear it, how is it still free?