A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops.
General of the Armies John J. Pershing
The Supreme Court Blows It Big Time:
Snyder v Phelps [Westboro Baptist]
8-1 For "First Amendment": Thumbs DOWN!
Justice Alito in Dissent: Thumbs UP!
The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, is a fringe "Christian" church which takes its virulent rhetoric against homosexuality (which they believe is a "capital crime"), Roman Catholicism, and other religions (e.g., Judaism and Islam) Most notoriously to draw attention to themselves, they picket military funerals of Iraqi and Afghan campaign heroes, celebrating God's "punishment" against America for its tolerance of homosexuality; they attack Catholics for allegedly funding "pedophile rapists" and picket the US visits of "the Godfather of Pedophiles", Pope Benedict XVI (whom they consider one of the members of the Unholy Trinity along with Satan and the Anti-Christ, President Obama). Of course, Muslims probably know the WBC from the threatened Koran burning on 9/11, and most Americans maybe remember how the WBC threatened to picket the funerals of two Giffords' assassination event Catholic fatalities: 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green and Federal Judge John Roll; they then used their threat to extort free Arizona media time to promulgate their views.
The basic facts of the case are well-known: WBC decided to picket the 2006 Westminister, Maryland funeral of (Roman Catholic) Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. (The church members were restrained several hundred yards from the funeral event.) Al Snyder, the late son's father, sued WBC and won a nearly $11M judgment the next year. The Fourth Circuit on September 24, 2009 reversed on WBC appeal, and the Supreme Court heard the case last fall, with the decision released today.
Before proceeding with the decision, let me cite a couple of my prior posts on related discussion. From my 3/31/10 post:
I do not believe intimidation of family members and attendees at a funeral, disrupting the decorum of a singular religious or cultural event, constitutes constitutionally-protected "free speech"; this makes no more sense than saying an anti-noise ordinance or disturbing the peace citation violates the same. In fact, I believe that the church infringed on Snyder's freedom to worship, which is a First Amendment right.From my 1/12/11 post:
There are certain recognized exceptions to the First Amendment (being argued by Phelps): for example, if you are a defendant, you don't have the right to interrupt a judge or show him contempt; you don't have a right to incite a riot, e.g., falsely allege there's a fire in a crowded theater and cause a public panic; you don't have the right to smear or libel the reputation of another person.
It's fairly clear to me you don't have to go through Justice Elena Kagan's worries about a slippery slope against the First Amendment. I think at special events (e.g., inaugurations, graduations, weddings, religious milestones or funerals), you have a right of decorum. Moreover, it's unjust to harass an individual whom is not in a policy-making role. Phelps has several mechanisms to promote his views without infringing on another person's right to be left alone.The Supreme Court paid lip service to the unconscionable nature of WBC messages but explicitly rejected exactly the kinds of contextual restrictions I've outlined above and regarded the protests as fundamentally protected public speech. For example, WBC has been systematically protesting funerals of certain high-profile gays for over a dozen years, there is a general political message behind the protested, and Snyder was not the first or only protested fatality of the Middle East campaigns. I often do go through processes of rebutting speeches point-by-point; I found myself disagreeing on one point after another in the majority opinion, but I think Justice Alito did a good job of discussing many of those points: among other things, WBC has multiple unfettered avenues (books, websites, etc.) of circulating its anti-gay message; the church is able to conduct its services unimpeded.
I want to make a nuanced distinction which I don't believe was addressed by the Supreme Court. In particular, I don't have an issue with the WBC doing a protest outside of a national cemetery or at some generic tomb, e.g, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This could be seen as a general protest. But when you single out a fatality and you intrude on an individual's or a related group's ability to grieve in decorum. There's only one reason to protest at a funeral: it violates social and cultural norms and hence attracts media attention. Why should the Supreme Court provide a precedent for any crackpot movement to politically exploit solemn occasions? Why do their abstract rights supersede family and friends' rights to privacy, to grieve with dignity?
I have heard many pro-SCOTUS decision lawyers (e.g., Fox News' Megyn Kelly) point out it's OK to make state laws restricting funeral protests but states like Maryland and Arizona only more recently passed laws. These rights are not intrinsic but only exist within the context of state legislative rights? I do not know how my libertarian cousins tolerate such nonsense--in other words, I don't have an intrinsic right to practice my freedom of religion, i.e., engage in a religious activity like a funeral, free of intimidation of a tyrannical government, majority or any other group? There is no unenumerated (Ninth Amendment) right to be left alone with other mourners to grieve in peace? It's one thing for people to protest, say, in city squares or parks where I have no reasonable expectation of privacy; it's another thing when these people act as if their own rights supersede mine... It's one thing for people to exercise their own rights, within their own space, their own voluntary associations, to express their objectional views, but I should not have people impose themselves onto my personal space; that violates the very concept of liberty.
And yet I hear lawyers like Megyn Kelly point out, "Hey, maybe the father didn't see/hear the group, 1000 yards away at the time, so it's not relevant." Utter nonsense: they didn't protest every fatality; the signs were not simply general policy protests. Snyder was picked because he was Catholic; many of the signs (do a Google image search) seem addressed directly to the victims/families: "God hates you", "Your sons are in hell", "God killed your sons", "You're going to hell", "God is your enemy", "Thank God for dead soldiers", etc. These are not "speech"; they deliberately prey on emotionally vulnerable people at a specific time and place. They are not directed at policy makers or judges; they focus on everyday Americans whom just lost a loved one and have little voice beyond their own votes as citizens to influence the country's laws. To the best of my knowledge, Matthew Snyder and his family did nothing to provoke these WBC actions. The WBC deliberately chose them.
I don't think it should be necessary to enforce decorum, but if it was in my power, I would enforce a consistent ban on political activity for at least an hour before through an hour after within vicinity of funeral events, including churches/facilities, final resting places, and any funeral procession drive.
Ohio Senate Takes Courageous First Step for the Taxpayer:
Ohio Breaks the Cycle of Public Union Corruption: Thumbs UP!
Ohio took a first step towards trying to rein in runaway compensation costs for state workers, which are unsustainable, and providing more control for education and other government reforms by passing a morally necessary Senate Bill 5. I congratulate the senators for taking the politically courageous step of change instead of more of the unsustainable status quo. I look forward to the Republican-controlled House passing the measure and forwarding it to Governor Kasich for his signature.
Political Humor
A federal watchdog agency says that overlapping and duplicate programs waste billions of dollars each year. Congress is taking this study so seriously that they’re ordering a second study to look into it. - Jay Leno
[The agency had come across the results from the original federal watchdog agency which found that overlapping and duplicate programs waste millions of dollars each year. The Congress' first decision was to eliminate the new federal watchdog agency.]
On Piers Morgan’s show, Charlie Sheen brought out a drug test to prove that he’s clean. Then he answered some questions to prove that he’s not. - Jimmy Fallon
[Now you know why Charlie Sheen claims he has tiger blood coursing through his veins. The tiger really did test clean...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Bee Gees/Andy Gibb, "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water". Big brother Barry Gibb became the first singer/songwriter to write 4 contiguous #1 hits (with 2 Bee Gee's, Yvonne Elliman's, and this hit from the youngest Brother Gibb.
