The US Supreme Court today upheld restrictions on political speech, such as restrictions on advertisements before an election. It’s a natural progression, of course, since true freedom of religious speech and association was done away with a few decades ago. Well, the first amendment was getting old anyway. [Article] Freedom of political speech isn’t important these days, I suppose — but we can hang on to the first amendment for perverts and vulgar pop stars or the f-word on broadcast television, since they were the ones the first amendment was meant to protect anyway.
Tag: law
Appeals court: Monument okay?
This time an appeals court judge ruled that a monument of the Ten Commandments is okay. What will be interesting to see is if the Supreme Court, which chickened out on hearing Roy Moore’s appeal, will now have to take this one up since it is the exact opposite ruling. [Article]
The cowardly court
The cowardly court: The US Supreme Court today refused to weigh in on the Ten Commandments monument case involving Judge Roy Moore, allowing an absurd ruling by a lower court to stand. This is cowardly because the court is refusing to clarify why it is okay for the Supreme Court to have the Ten Commandments plastered in it’s own courtroom just behind the chief Justice, but not okay for an elected chief Justice in a State Supreme Court to place a monument in his courthouse. [Article] Also: Why I think this is a stupid ruling
Judicial insanity continues
Judicial insanity continues: A federal judge has thrown out a rape sentence of a man convicted of repeatedly raping the 8 year old daughter of his fiance, because Bible verses were read by the sentencing judge in court. [Article]
Supreme Court: Stillbirth Murder
The Supreme Court has already invented a constitutional right to privacy, a “right” that has led to legal abortion, the striking down of sodomy laws, etc. Proof that such a “right” is absurd, the court still upholds laws and rulings that interfere with this so-called right — such as not allowing private, personal drug use, prostitution, etc. But even more paradoxical is that the same court that has determined that this right means that a woman should be allowed to kill her unborn children, even late-term by having a doctor sever the child’s spinal cord and then extract the corpse from her womb, now is allowing a “stillbirth murder” ruling to stand. [Article] Here we have a cocaine addict who has been convicted of murder for killing her unborn child with drugs in her system. The absurdity of our judicial system’s arbitrary decisions regarding this “right” to privacy (which includes abortion rights) is amplified by the fact that if this woman had chosen to have a partial-birth abortion, instead of carry the child to term, there would be no legal question.