« In what particular way did this lead to job creation? | Main | Noses, faces, and spite »

Supreme Injustice

Good lord.

When I first broached my "don't piss off the crazy dangerous people" observation, I knew it was getting bad. I just didn't know how bad.

At that point, we had as proponents such high-ranking figures as General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama all saying "forget about your Constitutional rights; it's more important that you not piss off the crazy dangerous people." At that point, you'd find yourself saying "well, it couldn't get any worse.

Yes, it could.

It could include Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

According to this quite liberal Justice (appointed by President Bill Clinton), burning a Koran just might be the equivalent of "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" -- so explicitly dangerous, that it cannot be tolerated.

Note that Justice Breyer doesn't take into account the fact that the harm caused by the 'fire' incident is from the entirely-understandable panic caused by people believing that their lives are in imminent danger. In the Koran case, it's one step removed -- it's not the burning of the Koran that causes the danger, but the reaction by others to the provocation.

Further, Justice Breyer omits an even more significant point: the responses that he views as entirely predictable and understandable are in itself a violation of the law.

Arson. Vandalism. Assault. Disorderly conduct. Rioting. Inciting a riot. Attempted murder. Murder.

It's a form of blaming the victim. "Yes, you didn't break any laws when you burned that Koran. But you still had it coming. You pretty much deserved what will happen to you. We might try to protect you, but don't count on it."

I thought we were past that.

I guess not.

Oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Could someone tell me what sorts of provocation I can use when I feel like beating the hell out of someone, and not having to worry about the authorities trying to stop me?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40096.

Comments (34)

Well, there goes the "voice... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Well, there goes the "voices in my head" excuse.

I really do think the new excuse, "Because I'm a Muslim fanatic and I'm so offended by 'X' that I'm going to kill you" will cover so many more events than simple murder.

whata bunch of maroons...

Wouldn't issuing a fatwa be... (Below threshold)
Joe Miller:

Wouldn't issuing a fatwa be more like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, Justice Breyer? Dumbass.

So much for "violence will ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

So much for "violence will get you nowhere" argument.

I guess it's time to threat... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

I guess it's time to threaten violence every time the left offends Christians & Jews.

These liberal idiots... (Below threshold)
914:


These liberal idiots from Breyer to the narxcist marxist in chief are endangering the damn country with thier nansy pansy european appeasement of toga wearing tribesman.

You need to be part of a "p... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

You need to be part of a "protected class" Jay. Work out gaining inclusion into the one you find most acceptable.

My question is: How to Hell did Muslims become a protected class? World-wide numbers demonstrate they are anything but a minority. Only about half of them are female... who don't get treated all that well in a significant portion of Muslim ruled lands. Are they all Democrats?

"I thought we were past tha... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I thought we were past that."

You SHALL report to a re-education camp immediately!

Next watch Breyer find that you have a "Constitutional Right" NOT to be offended by something or someone.

Well, Breyer's a complete d... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Well, Breyer's a complete dumbass, of course.

The whole idea of free speech is that offensive speech is allowed. Speech that doesn't bother anyone doesn't need to be protected. If people can riot and take away free speech, then, there is no free speech.

The "fire in a crowded theater" case, by the way (Schenck), didn't involve a crowded theater at all. It involved flyers opposing the draft in WWI. In fact, Schenck was partially overturned by Brandenburg.

This is how dhimmitude slow... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

This is how dhimmitude slowly creeps in.

At some point, we're going to have to decide if we'll be dhimmis, or not.

Wow, now we're back to the ... (Below threshold)

Wow, now we're back to the "She had it coming, just look at how she was dressed." days. Wait, isn't that was Muslims use to justify stoning women?

It just goes to show that a... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

It just goes to show that as bad as the Jihadists are, the biggest threat to our freedom is not the terrorists, but their appeasers. If only the left could see that we are all better off if we stand firm against these thugs. But no, they prefer to prostrate themselves.

Funny when we had Piss Chri... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Funny when we had Piss Christ and people burning bibles he didnt seem to hold the same opinion.
Wonder if some aspiring MSM reporter will point that out to him.

YEAH RIGHT. LOL

Isn't there at least an inf... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Isn't there at least an informal rule that the supremes aren't supposed to make comments about maters that are or could become maters before the court. Since there was some speculation about filing a BS "dangerous fire" misdemeanor which would have the obvious 1st amendment defense, it would seem that this should apply here.
On the other hand, Beyer may realize that he doesn't want to vote for a Christian nor a ruling that could be used to stop flag burning, so he just is trying to set himself up to be able to recuse himself. Naaah, I don't think he can think that far ahead.

I think this means you can ... (Below threshold)
MunDane68:

I think this means you can beat the crap out of Justice Breyer as long as you scream 'Allahu Akbar!" while doing it.

Isn't there at lea... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Isn't there at least an informal rule that the supremes aren't supposed to make comments about maters that are or could become maters before the court.

Excellent point that I missed. [please work on your spelling]

Yes. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits this sort of comment.

As a student in a midwestern state university, I attended a lecture by the Hon. William O. Douglas. Justice Douglas took questions from the audience. He refused to answer a question about the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon. In 1973.

<a href="http://wi... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Two weeks ago Jay, you presented this choice to moderate muslims:

Moderate Muslims, you have a choice to make. Do you want to stake your future with us, who have a proven record of winning, and won't kill you? Do you want to stand with the radicals, who end up slaughtering any they even suspect of not agreeing with them 100% all the time, and end up being destroyed?...

Join us. Stand with us. Identify and denounce and root out the cancer on your faith. Help bring about the "Reformation" that Judaism and Christianity each experienced that allowed them to outgrow their aggressive phase and learn how to get along with the rest of the world.

In becoming part of the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim?) modern world, is this the first step that moderate muslims should take, to stand with us, by joining us or at least, acquiescing with our crazies, in the burning of their own Korans?

Just asking? Doesn't sound like a convincing strategy to me to win the moderate muslims over, unless you have no intention to do so.

In our game, a deuce beats ... (Below threshold)
Roy:

In our game, a deuce beats an ace. We have the second amendment to prevent idiots like him from abusing the first.

Well Justice Breyer will so... (Below threshold)
phaedruscj:

Well Justice Breyer will soon get a chance to decide an issue like this as Snyder v Phelps is coming to the Supreme Court. Speeech doesn't get any more vile and inflammatroy than the Fred Phelps and his family. But in this case the Phelps speeech isn't directed against Muslims.

In becoming part of the ... (Below threshold)

In becoming part of the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim?) modern world, is this the first step that moderate muslims should take, to stand with us, by joining us or at least, acquiescing with our crazies, in the burning of their own Korans?

What an insipid argument. No one is demanding that. What we're demanding is that they take a stand against the lunatics in their own faith, the ones who don't merely burn books but instead terrorize, slaughter, and riot. And if a non-Muslim lunatic burns a Koran, that they respond as other civilized people respond... with words, not threats.

What we're demanding is ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

What we're demanding is that they take a stand against the lunatics in their own faith

but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero

That would be too much of a... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

That would be too much of a stand.

Why do we use the translite... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Why do we use the transliterated spelling of "Koran" when the correct spelling is "Qur'an?" I think this def. shows how racist, islamophobic, and uninclusive we are as a society! (Sarcasm)

Breyers comments are a growing example of a largely politicized court. A court we haven't seen this politcally based since the Taney court during the Civil War era. Whenever a case appears before the court, we know how they will be split, there is no thoughtful consideration of what the founders intended but what the political bent of the justice is.

There has always been politics on the SCOTUS, examples include the Midnight Judge appointments of Marbury vs. Madison, but only, as mentioned earlier, have political lines on the court been drawn so clearly. There is no thoughtful deliberation, discussion with peers, it's 5-4 straight dwn the line, all to the detriment of the American people.

but not build an inter-f... (Below threshold)
Deke:

but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero

Hmmm..if a large Christian church was built on or very near the mass graves of Muslims in the killing fields of Kosovo, as a show of "healing" I wonder what the response would be?

but not build an inter-f... (Below threshold)

but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero

Oh, is that what it is now? First it was called a mosque (both by the people involved in the project and the useful idiots on the left), then a "community center," and now it's an "inter-faith center." Let us know when you're done changing the wording around, OK Steve?

Now, as to the actual point, you somehow managed to utterly avoid it in a weak attempt to distract.

I am definitely a wild and ... (Below threshold)
epador:

I am definitely a wild and crazy guy.

Don't piss me off any more, OK?

Deke, wasn't the <a href="h... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Deke, wasn't the Kosovo cleansing in response to the Serbia ethnic cleansing of muslims?

However. It will be interesting how the mosque/inter-faith center works out even with a Christian and Jew on the board.

Killing fields, believe or not the 'situation' is so grim or widespead in lower Manhattan...Perhaps a holocaust type museum room showing all the consequences of fanaticism, ethnic cleansing/ religious extremism in the center at a compromise location or better yet a room dedicated to moderate martyrs (including muslims) that have given their lives in the pursuit of moderate faith.

Evil Otto, fanatical musli... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Evil Otto, fanatical muslims are relentless, no doubt about that. Actually, I believe al- Queda is in retreat, suicide bombers against muslims are not a good way to gain recruits or popular support.

Moderate muslims are making stands. In every country there seems to be a revulsion. The Anbar awakening, the tide seems to turning in Pakistan, etc. perhaps only in Yemen or Afghanistan is progress slow. Generally Arab citizens are fed up.. and there have been a number of recantations, partly as result of long prison sentences having to be endured by fanatical extremists.

There's this thing called "... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

There's this thing called "rule of law" which, since the Magna Carta, has been the ideal of the Western world. It means that the government safeguards order, and punishes anyone, no matter how powerful, rich, well-connected, or crazy, if they harm me.

Our government has already abandoned parts of Arizona to armed foreign forces intent on spreading organized crime. They can easily excuse abandoning American citizens to "honor killings" and fatwas.

but not build an i... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero

Wrong again, dumbasss!!!! WAAATAGGGOOOOO!!!!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM

Taint no "inter-faith center" bullshit, dildo. Be big ole rabat. Grow up, dumbass.


I tell ya it all goes back ... (Below threshold)
stewart:

I tell ya it all goes back to the lack of reading skills. If you can't read, or find it difficult, you don't read of the be-headings, they severing of hands, the whippings, the honor killings, that are standard fare with that barbaric religion. We cannot let them gain the beach head here that they've gained in Denmark, Germany, France. They're like the creatures from the "Alien" movies, or the "Mob", calling this "Thing" a religion is folly.

Steve C - agree with what y... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Steve C - agree with what you wrote in #27, but come on. "Inter-faith"?? So, according to this new label, I could take my LCMS youth group and hold services in this Muslim place and worship Jesus Christ as "the way, the truth and the life"?

Dear lawyer-in-a-dress-with... (Below threshold)

Dear lawyer-in-a-dress-with-a-politician-for-a-friend Breyer

My Mum once told me it is better that a Lefty moron shut up and have folks wonder if he's thicker-than-two-planks fascist than to open his mouth and to remove all doubt.

What happened to America's ... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

What happened to America's balls?

Can you hear that?

That's the sound of a nation of ragtops, laughing their ass off.

What happens next, WILL be our fault, cowards.

Big Mo -Certainly,... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Big Mo -

Certainly, if you don't mind watching them go all frothy with rage and then attempt decapitations.

I recommend extra heavy starch in your collars if you try it...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy