Shot in the Dark

Limits

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Should that cover demonstrating outside the homes of judges to demand a particular result?

The purpose of speech directed at the government is to change government policy, which is properly made by the Legislative Branch (albeit sometimes the details of how to carry out policy are delegated to the Executive Branch). But the Judicial Branch does not make policy, it decides cases according to the policies set by the Legislative Branch, as we all learned in high school civics class. That’s how the checks-and-balances system of the Constitution was set up.

Stop laughing. I know that’s not how it was done in the past – abortion, gay marriage – but that’s what Alito’s draft opinion means. It means the Judicial Branch is restoring Constitutional government to the land.

Justice Thomas was absolutely correct when he said, “We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like. We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”

The people protesting outside judges’ homes demanding a particular result are using the same intimidation tactics as cross burners and ‘protection’ racketeers. They should be arrested and prosecuted for domestic terrorism.

Joe Doakes

Justice Thomas was right. He was also raised in a generation that had some concept of “living with consequences “.

We haven’t had one of those generations, least of all among our “cultural elites“, in quite some time.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Limits”

  1. Blade Nzimande Avatar
    Blade Nzimande

    In general, I support the right to protest at someone’s home as long as they stay off private property.

    But I also support the right of the homeowner and his neighbors to water their lawns, boulevards and everything in between whenever they want. With high pressure pumps.

    I also support enforcement of noise ordinances; with ax handles and brass knuckles.

  2. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    I can’t agree. The purpose of speech is to change an outcome by persuasion. The purpose of protecting freedom of speech to to prevent one side from suppressing the other side’s persuasive speech.

    Court opinions by Liberal judges have perverted the guarantee of free speech to include threats and intimidation tactics that the Founders would never have countenanced. See: R.A.V. v. St. Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the City of St. Paul cross-burning case.

    It’s bad enough when the threats and intimidation tactics are used at the capitol (for example, armed citizens wearing guns to the committee hearing to threaten and intimidate lawmakers considering gun control). It’s worse when they are used at the homes of private citizens to frighten them into moving out of the neighborhood. It worst of all when they are used to terrify jurors and intimidate judges to achieve a lynching. That’s what happened in the St. Floyd case.

    That’s what Liberals are doing with their protest outside Supreme Court justices’ homes. It’s not free speech. It’s domestic terrorism. It should be punished accordingly.

  3. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    The Alito opinion was leaks, what, 2 weeks ago?
    And I still have not read any substantive criticism of his legal reasoning.
    You want a legal right to an abortion? Convince the voters, don’t threaten judges, or your enemies may begin to do the same.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.