Utopia Talk / Politics / O'Reilly's stupid ass does Good

earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 15:05:52 Apparently, he will be paying the legal bills of the father who sued the "thank god for IED" protesters at his son's funeral. http://www...bill-for-dead-marines-dad.html
habebe Member	Sat Apr 24 15:29:52 Good.
Madc0w Member	Sat Apr 24 15:35:41 O'Reilly is the least stupidest and most sane out of all the conservative talk show hosts.
Madc0w Member	Sat Apr 24 15:35:57 least stupid*
The Guardian Member	Sat Apr 24 15:45:19 He is the worst. He is a statist.
Aeros Member	Sat Apr 24 16:01:57 At least he's coherent half the time.
Madc0w Member	Sat Apr 24 16:05:42 O'Reilly is far more intelligent than Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage are bigger idiots.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 16:07:30 i agree with madc0w, those guys are bigger idiots. regarding political beliefs, i agree with guardian.
The Guardian Member	Sat Apr 24 16:25:30 Guess that confirms my claim. He is the worst.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 24 16:29:42 Baier and Gutfeld are the only ones worth anything.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 17:30:36 influence also counts for something, forwyn. if no one knows who they are, they can be regarded as mostly harmless.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 24 17:33:31 If you don't know who they are, its probably because they dont stir up shitstorms for ratings by being retards :P
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 17:37:31 yes, quite the catch 22 that pundits and journalists have. be reasonable and intelligent, no one will know who you are, and you wont get ze moneys. be an intelligent irrational hate-filled fuckwad, and get fame and fortune. as long as your fuckwad opinions mesh well with deep-rooted issues of your fanbase, anyways. "it's not that i want to deny emergency room to illegal immigrants because i hate filthy beaners... it's because i think they are *bad for the economy* that i want them to die! honest." et cetera.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 17:38:10 *...deny emergency room _care_ to illegal...
Fred Phelps Member	Sat Apr 24 17:38:17 We thank God for every dead Fag! THANK GOD THE MEXICANS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER! Headline: 17-year-old among victims in Juarez shootout. (Other 6 killed were police officers on special task force to combat drug violence.) GodSmack! Mexico is predominately Roman Catholic idolaters who pay priests to rape their children. www.priestsrapeboys.com. -region> Where you have raping priests, you have same-sex marriage. So, on March 4, 2010, Mexico City began marrying fags/dykes. Thus, ensuring Mexico’s final destruction (ala Sodom [Gen. 19] and Gibeah [Judges 19-21]), and hastening the Second Coming of the Lord (Mt. 24:37-38). God’s Judgment is upon you! He sent you unprecedented violence - 400 killings already this year - for your proud idolatry and fag-enabling sin. The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Ps. 9:16-17.) http://blo...04/24/godsmack-mexican-murders
KreeL Member	Sat Apr 24 17:46:01 To return the favor, and in honor or what O'Reilly did, I will buy his Oxycontin for the next 2 hr. 20 min. - we should all pitch in and do our part.
Freddy Member	Sat Apr 24 17:58:51 If O'Reilly cared anything at all about this besides exploiting this situation for personal gain for only $16,500, then he would give the father the $11 million settlement also. O'Reilly is only in it for the cheap personal publicity.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Apr 24 18:01:53 it's worth O'Reilly getting some good PR if it means the destruction of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Freddy Member	Sat Apr 24 18:08:34 Got something against free speech, baby killer? Why the fuck is it that assholes such as yourself and Aeros, who claim to have fought for OUR FREEDOMS, are the FIRST to want to take our freedoms away? The court made the right decision, deal with it.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Apr 24 18:27:44 A statist? So I presume you did not support the statist George W. Bush, TG?
Amadeus Member	Sat Apr 24 18:39:26 Phelps and his followers will do it one time too many someday. I'm reminded of the line by Eastwood in Grand Torino. "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me."
charper Member	Sat Apr 24 18:58:14 "A statist? So I presume you did not support the statist George W. Bush, TG? " Youre mixing him up with HR. Completely different guy.
garyd Member	Sat Apr 24 22:41:38 Okay forst of O'reilly isn't really all that conservative. He's a populist. His positions are so all over the place that it's almost impossible to catalogue him. He's on the conservative side on social issues but when it comes to economic issues he is almost wholely unpredictable.
Rugian Member	Sat Apr 24 23:04:56 Let me get this straight. A guy launches a completely frivolous lawsuit (he doesn't need $11 million to assuage his grief) and is forced to pay legal bills for wasting the time of the court and the defendants... ...and this is considered a BAD thing? WTF?
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 09:33:24 Why not it worked against the Klan? Getting Phelps to act like a sane and rational human being or at least making it a lot more difficult for the asshat to make life difficult for those who have lost loved ones in the WOT seems to me like a fairly worthwhile goal.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 09:36:30 Rugian, the best part is that the people who are so butthurt are often the same ones invoking "tort reform" and the Constitution - though clearly they do not favor free speech.
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 09:46:08 Sorry this isn't about free speech. This is about privacy in that most private of moments when one is saying one's last good byes to a loved one. Phelps is quite free to spout whatever nonsense he cares at the top of his lungs from any street corner he wishes. But you don't get to shout fire in a crwded theater nor do you get to badger people at a private party to which you aren't an invitee.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 09:48:59 garyd, are you asserting that THE CALL CAME FROM INSIDE THE CASKET?
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 10:11:06 Of course not. Are you that stupid or are you just firing for effect?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 11:46:12 This is about free speech, dumbass. They were lawfully assembled and engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 11:49:52 Marquez, the Constitutionality remains to be seen. This exact case is before The Supreme Court. If they rule for privacy neither The Marine's father or O'Reilley have to pay a dime.
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 11:51:22 No they weren't. They were on private property uninvited and were violating others privacy rights.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 12:01:14 garyd Member Sun Apr 25 11:51:22 "No they weren't. They were on private property uninvited and were violating others privacy rights." Source? They could be sued for trespassing instead of this pussy suing for his emotional distress.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 12:09:30
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 12:09:39 A source? From garyduh? Lol
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 12:14:59 So TG and gayd, where in the Constitution is your right not to be offended by free speech? Or do you support the same kind of judicial activism that brought us Roe v. Wade?
Madc0w Member	Sun Apr 25 12:21:18 It's a different situation, though, when the defendant is the most despicable person in the country.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 12:28:38 Indeed, Madc0w. gayd and Not Angel believe the Constitution should only be applicable when they feel it delivers the appropriate outcome.
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 12:32:16 Apparently I was in error. He was on a public side walk the question here isn't about free speech but whether you are permitted to willfully inflict pain and suffering on others verbally as well as physically.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 12:35:24 The question is whether the First Amendment only protects speech that does not offend gayd.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 12:46:20 "Apparently I was in error. He was on a public side walk " Anyone with an IQ above 50 points would have realized that otherwise the case would have been open and shut years ago, for christ sake. Dumdumdum...
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 12:47:48 As I stated, the case is now before The Supreme Court and we are awaiting their decision. I am one of the foremost proponents of free speech, but considering how the politicians have foisted their economi bill of rights on us where everyone is entitled to a car, house, free medical a good job and all of the happiness they can stand a case might be made for a little privacy for a family to bury their family members lost in battle without someone shouting insults in their ear. Perhaps the USSC will determine that saying goodbye to a loved one is a form of protected free speech. Patience, we should know within a few weeks.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 12:49:06 You are not a foremost proponent of free speech. You are not a libertarian. You are a neoconservative child molester with an 8th grade education.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 12:52:32 This is just not true and you know it. He also did a year in typing at clown college, Hawaii.
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 12:55:31 Wrong renzo the cases hinges on whether you can willfully inflict pain and suffering on others and defame them into the bargain.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 13:01:32 gayd, what are the allegedly defamatory statements? Also, isn't emotional pain and suffering for oversensitive liberal pussies?
garyd Member	Sun Apr 25 13:10:59 Nope.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:16:25 From what I can tell Marqsa, charper and some others are using the same tactics the church does. You used it against Hot Rod and now you are assuming I am Hot Rod and you are contimuing to use those tactics. You spread your smut in order to shut up your opposition, it you that are deathly afraid of free speech because yuou know that your arguments are baseless. While you are saying you are the chapions of free speech, you are doing everything you can to deny mine. You are no better than the ladies in pink that disrupt a book signinmg or the students that rush a stage with banners and obscenities to shut up an invited conservative speaker, but will sit listen in rapture when a criminal or terrosist is speaking at one of your ivy league colleges. You are right smavk in the middle of the same class as those so called christians frome that Kansas church and not much better than the terrorists that blow up babies. Frankly, you are amongst the dregs of humanity. I bet you are really proud.
SmarterthanBush Member	Sun Apr 25 13:18:21 'While you are saying you are the chapions of free speech, you are doing everything you can to deny mine' Fuck off Hot Rod. Now I KNOW it's you.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 13:18:23 I have done nothing to try to restrict your speech. I have merely engaged in my own. But feel free to carry on with your martyr complex, TG/HR/JPJ/Angel.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:23:26 Now I KNOW it's you. Well let's see. We both speak English, I am a republican conservatuve, I believe in the Constitution, and through a fluke we both have used the same computer. Yep, that clenches it, I must be Hot Rod and you must be amongst the biggest morons in whichever country you are in. Or perhaps all countries for that matter.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:24:39 rofl...
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:25:34 Fascinating. Completely pathological liar. Do you think he somehow believes himself?
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:25:34 I have done nothing to try to restrict your speech. Just as the dregs from that church have done nothing to prevent families from burying theier sons and daughters. As I said, you are no better than they are.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 13:26:31 The Guardian Member Sun Apr 25 13:23:26 "We both speak English..." Poorly. "...I believe in the Constitution..." Incorrect. You do not believe in the Constitution. Neither did HR. "...and through a fluke we both have used the same computer..." Lulz@fluke
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:31:04 So HR, about you being Jewish? lol... "The Guardian Member Thu Apr 22 06:21:54 Had you spent a minute researching you would know that is a Talis Bag. It is what we carry our prayer shawl in. " rofl
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:41:15 Screw you guys, if you want to have a rational discussion about a serious matter let me know.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:46:29 Yeah, tell us when you give up the retarded childs game of pretending to be an atheist Jew who bought HR's PC when you lied that you were dead, and maybe we'll talk. Ok? Now you have a nice day :)
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:49:46 That will be sometime after you gain at least an infintesimal amount of intelligence.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:53:52 When I come out of a horrifying car accident into a mountain at 120mph, god forbid, with an infintesimal amount of intelligence, we shall finally speak as equals. Until then little retard, whenever you want to debate something just remember, drop the little sandbox kiddie lies and retardness and give us a call, ok? :)
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 13:56:36 I doubt you arte smart enough to drive a car into a mountain. You would miss the tunnel.
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 13:58:03 Lol, if I missed the tunnel, guess what I would hit? The mountain! Give a cigar to the retard! fuck me lol...
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 14:01:19 Yes dippy, you would hit the side of the mountan but yiou would not drive into the mountain. Here's your cigar back.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 14:02:24 I guess it is really true what some of the others say avout yoiu. You really are the stupidest poster on this forum.
Madc0w Member	Sun Apr 25 14:02:34 This is quite an intellectual battle
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 14:02:49 "you would hit the side of the mountan but yiou would not drive into the mountain" ROFL! The retardness is incredible lmao
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 14:03:47 Care to join in or are you able to disarm to our level?
charper Member	Sun Apr 25 14:07:33 So, how long are you planning on pretending to be dead and reincarnated as a jewish atheist Rod? Are you really sure you've thought this one through? lol...
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 15:41:25 So should people who troll facebook RIP pages be forced to pay $11m too?
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 15:43:54 Im not sure by I don't think the father asked for those damages. I think they were given to him by a lower court and then taken back by the appeals court. Not sure, maybe someone can clarify.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Apr 25 17:30:49 I am firmly on the side of Free Speech, Fred. Freedom goes two ways, though. The hate church disrupted the family's freedom to conduct a proper and respectful funeral. I would be fully in favor of allowing them to protest the day before or the day after the funeral. Everyone wins, and all freedoms are thus protected. What do you think of them waving "got hates fags" and handing out hate literature outside of a school, just as school gets out? this is scheduled for the 3rd of May, btw. http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Apr 25 17:32:51 hey look at that, they are also going to protest at a Jewish school for children.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 17:34:36 earthpig GTFO HOer Sun Apr 25 17:30:49 "The hate church disrupted the family's freedom to conduct a proper and respectful funeral." So you value some made up right over the First Amendment. As a marine, didn't you swear to uphold the Constitution?
ehcks Member	Sun Apr 25 17:39:07 The first amendment doesn't apply to speech intended to incite violence. Everyone knows that's what Phelps' protests are intended for. The problem is proving it legally.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 17:40:07 Do you have any examples of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church behaving violently?
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 17:43:48 Marquez, if the USSC rules in favor of the Marines father will you accept that Privacy is then a Constitutional Right? And just out of curiosity do you support the Presidents Health Plan when he says everuone has a right to health care?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 17:46:38 The Guardian Member Sun Apr 25 17:43:48 "Marquez, if the USSC rules in favor of the Marines father will you accept that Privacy is then a Constitutional Right?" The USSC has already ruled that privacy is a constitutional right. I've never disputed this. "And just out of curiosity do you support the Presidents Health Plan when he says everuone has a right to health care?" No, I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to health care.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 17:50:10 The USSC has already ruled that privacy is a constitutional right. I've never disputed this. They did? I thought that is what this case is to determine. If the churches free speech trumps the families privacy.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 17:54:19 The Guardian Member Sun Apr 25 17:50:10 "They did?" Repeatedly. Griswold and Roe being the most famous cases.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 17:57:51 In Griswold and Roe the supreme court talks about "penumbra of rights" what does it mean? It means that there is an all encompassing grouping of rights. Some of the rights within that grouping have been fully developed and are in the bright light. Some of them have not been fully developed and are more amorphous at that point in its jurisprudence, including the right to privacy upon which Roe was based. So the right to privacy has not yet been fully developed.
Bullshitdetector New Member	Sun Apr 25 18:03:21 http://ans...ndex?qid=20090416142058AAIWDcH rofl
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 18:04:35 http://www...a+of+rights&btnG=Google+Search Don't like that one, choose another.
Bullshitdetector Member	Sun Apr 25 18:10:44 Ok, from your source: MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven - a center open and operating from November 1 to November 10, 1961, when appellants were arrested. They gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). The former provides: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned." Section 54-196 provides: "Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender." The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each, against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.... Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overtones of some arguments suggest that Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, should be our guide. But we decline that invitation. We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation. The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights. By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge... And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases. In NAACP v. Alabama we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid "as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association." Ibid. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful. The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one. The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. Reversed. MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring. I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments, I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding. The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected. In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]." Mr. Justice Story wrote of this argument against a bill of rights and the meaning of the Ninth Amendment: "In regard to . . . [a] suggestion, that the affirmance of certain rights might disparage others, or might lead to argumentative implications in favor of other powers, it might be sufficient to say that such a course of reasoning could never be sustained upon any solid basis . . . . But a conclusive answer is, that such an attempt may be interdicted (as it has been) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." He further stated, referring to the Ninth Amendment: "This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the well-known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and, e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others." These statements of Madison and Story make clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...." In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental." The inquiry is whether a right involved "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those `fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions' . . . ." Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization -surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The logic of the dissents would sanction federal or state legislation that seems to me even more plainly unconstitutional than the statute before us. Surely the Government, absent a showing of a compelling subordinating state interest, could not decree that all husbands and wives must be sterilized after two children have been born to them. Yet by their reasoningsuch an invasion of marital privacy would not be subject to constitutional challenge because, while it might be "silly," noprovision of the Constitution specifically prevents the Government from curtailing the marital right to bear children and raise a family. While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts. Yet, if upon a showing of a slender basis of rationality, a law outlawing voluntary birth control by married persons is valid, then, by the same reasoning, a law requiring compulsory birth control also would seem to be valid. In my view, however, both types of law would unjustifiably intrude upon rights of marital privacy which are constitutionally protected. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting. I agree with my Brother STEWART'S dissenting opinion. And like him I do not to any extent whatever base my view that this Connecticut law is constitutional on a belief that the law is wise or that its policy is a good one. In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe - except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional. The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home. One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding thisConnecticut law unconstitutional. The due process argument which my Brothers HARLAN and WHITE adopt here is based, as their opinions indicate, on the premise that this Court is vested with power to invalidate all state laws that it considers to be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or oppressive, or on this Court's belief that a particular state law under scrutiny has no "rational or justifying" purpose, or is offensive to a "sense of fairness and justice." If these formulas based on "natural justice," or others which mean the same thing, are to prevail, they require judges to determine what is or is not constitutional on the basis of their own appraisal of what laws are unwise or unnecessary. The power to make such decisions is of course that of a legislative body. Surely it has to be admitted that no provision of the Constitution specifically gives such blanket power to courts to exercise such a supervisory veto over the wisdom and value of legislative policies and to hold unconstitutional those laws which they believe unwise or dangerous. I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old-fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an "arbitrary and capricious" or "shocking to the conscience" formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e. g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45. That formula, based on subjective considerations of "natural justice," is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, dissenting. Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 18:23:26 Even though the two cases are disimilar give me a synopsis. Does this mean that free speech trumps all privacy rights or is that yet to be determined by the Supreme Court?
Bullshitdetector Member	Sun Apr 25 18:33:22 Im not going to do your homework for you.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 18:36:54 Fred Phelps' church is not a government organization, Hot Rod. Your constitutional privacy right assertion fails as your assertion that I was violating your free speech right failed.
The Guardian Member	Sun Apr 25 18:44:45 If it is so open and shut, why did the court agree to hear it?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 19:30:00 http://www...lps%20Appellate%20Decision.pdf You can skip section II and the concurrence which are more procedural. Section I contains the factual background. Section III addresses the First Amendment issues. In addition to the protest, there was also an internet posting referred to as "the Epic" in the opinion. The Epic is a closer call since one could argue that is directed to the Snyders. I think it still constitutes constitutionally protected speech. The protest itself is definitely protected. That won't even be a close decision. The Epic might not be either.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 19:33:53 Do you think Mohammed cartoons should be prohibited? What about protestors who hold up signs with Mohammed cartoons near a mosque?
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Apr 25 19:53:12 @Renzo - not during Friday prayers. political free speech is an absolutely protected freedom. inciting violence is not considered political speech. "Thank God for IED's" is inciting violence. Approval and encouragement of violent acts against agents of the US, Iraqi, and Afghani Governments. This is why Martin Luther King Jr.'s words were acceptable, but a lot of Malcom X's stuff was not considered protected free speech - he advocated violence to achieve his goals. "We should make significant alterations to our current laws and policy regarding -subject-" versus "Please kill agents of the US Government" do you understand the difference? "US Out of Iraq Now!" versus "Iraqis, please kill every Iraqi and US troop you see" and "Thank God for IEDs"
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 19:57:38 I dont think someone holding a sign saying "Insurgents: KoS" would run into the same issues.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 19:58:04 earthpig GTFO HOer Sun Apr 25 19:53:12 "Thank God for IED's" is inciting violence. No. It is not inciting violence. This was not the basis of Snyder's lawsuit anyway. Read the opinion.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Apr 25 20:12:24 " I dont think someone holding a sign saying "Insurgents: KoS" would run into the same issues. " If that sign was held up at the memorial service for a young man that had been killed by US Forces in Iraq, i would have absolutely no objections to that protester being arrested.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Apr 25 20:12:53 "No. It is not inciting violence. This was not the basis of Snyder's lawsuit anyway. Read the opinion. " well, i suppose it is a good thing that i am not his attorney then.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 20:13:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg This is surely inciting violence.
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 25 20:14:56 "If that sign was held up at the memorial service for a young man that had been killed by US Forces in Iraq, i would have absolutely no objections to that protester being arrested." So the speech itself isnt the issue. Gotcha.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Apr 25 20:16:14 earthpig GTFO HOer Sun Apr 25 20:12:53 "well, i suppose it is a good thing that i am not his attorney then." Correct.
Renzo Marquez Member	Mon Apr 26 18:08:27 ttt
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Apr 26 18:39:14 @renzo- he is petitioning his elected representatives to do something within the confines of US and (if his allegations were true) International law. do you see how that is different than if he was soliciting a bomber pilot, on his own, to bomb Tehran? it really isn't fair, but that's how it works -- you can always petition your elected representatives to do whatever you think should be done. that is political free speech, which is absolutely protected. another example: you can petition your state to have or not have the death penalty. but you can not attempt to enlist others in the murder of murderers. one is political, one is not. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence " In another major work, Politics as a Vocation, Weber defined the state as an entity which claims a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence", a definition that became pivotal to the study of modern Western political science. " try to keep up. this concept is close to a century old, and more-or-less accepted as fact. this is also why one can ask a captured enemy that isn't wearing a uniform more than his name, rank, and service number - uniform signifies acting on behalf of a state. (though attempts to extend that to include torture are obviously ridiculous. captured enemies not in uniform should be tried in civil courts, with all the same rights as any other criminal.... the imaginary third category bush attempted to create is bullshit and should not exist. soldier or not soldier. acting on behalf of a state or NOT acting on behalf of a state. that's it. also note that US military courts extend MORE rights to the accused, not less.)
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Apr 26 18:42:48 ill make another thread.
	show deleted posts