Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[goldcatt]

Where's Eric Rudolph when you need him.

We need a guy like him that hates fake Christians with bad hairdos. BOOM

I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

Believe it or not...I have about 100 college credits. Here's the real kicker. I majored in Journalism and was studying to be a Paralegal when that didn't go the way I wanted.

My school's Journalism Department [San Diego State Unv] lost it's accreditation. Then when I was studying Paralegal a lawyer told me he wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have tits and wear a dress. I have tits...but I'm not about to put on a dress.

TMI on the tits.

I just happen to have been interested in and following this case for a while now, and when I was practicing this sort of thing was my area - Federal appeals on mostly constitutional issues. So it's a thing with me. A lot of people are out there saying a lot of things about a case that is emotional and could be a very important decision and at least half of it isn't true.

Not having the time or ability to read the documents or grasp all the complexities doesn't bother me. This stuff is really technical and a lot of it complicated, even attorneys in other practice areas can have trouble with the concepts (then again, I probably couldn't conduct even a reasonably decent trial either). But misinformation being spread is a sort of pet peeve. And there's soooo much of it out there, it's easy to latch onto and form an opinion based on bad info.

Which is why I love primary sources.

 

[mudwhistle]

I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

Believe it or not...I have about 100 college credits. Here's the real kicker. I majored in Journalism and was studying to be a Paralegal when that didn't go the way I wanted.

My school's Journalism Department [San Diego State Unv] lost it's accreditation. Then when I was studying Paralegal a lawyer told me he wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have tits and wear a dress. I have tits...but I'm not about to put on a dress.

TMI on the tits.

I just happen to have been interested in and following this case for a while now, and when I was practicing this sort of thing was my area - Federal appeals on mostly constitutional issues. So it's a thing with me. A lot of people are out there saying a lot of things about a case that is emotional and could be a very important decision and at least half of it isn't true.

Not having the time or ability to read the documents or grasp all the complexities doesn't bother me. This stuff is really technical and a lot of it complicated, even attorneys in other practice areas can have trouble with the concepts (then again, I probably couldn't conduct even a reasonably decent trial either). But misinformation being spread is a sort of pet peeve. And there's soooo much of it out there, it's easy to latch onto and form an opinion based on bad info.

Which is why I love primary sources.

Yeah. Studying old docs is pretty interesting. Seems the US Constitution is always being debated but so many get it wrong. Like where is the Separation of Church and state in the constitution? Nowhere. But so many claim it is.

One of my profs used to say you could indict a ham-sammich. He also said that if you have enough money you can win regardless of the facts. I'm skeptical of this belief but because laws are so complex I think it's possible you can get a positive outcome even if you're guilty as sin.

I've studied heavily in Real Estate law which I was seriously thinking about going into. Last thing I wanted to be was a trial lawyer. It's much easier to close on 20 homes a day and pocket the closing fees instead of trying to convince a jury your client is innocent. I had 3 semesters of Paralegal under my belt and decided it wasn't for me. I got really fast at typing which helps here.

 

[goldcatt]

Believe it or not...I have about 100 college credits. Here's the real kicker. I majored in Journalism and was studying to be a Paralegal when that didn't go the way I wanted.

My school's Journalism Department [San Diego State Unv] lost it's accreditation. Then when I was studying Paralegal a lawyer told me he wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have tits and wear a dress. I have tits...but I'm not about to put on a dress.

TMI on the tits.

I just happen to have been interested in and following this case for a while now, and when I was practicing this sort of thing was my area - Federal appeals on mostly constitutional issues. So it's a thing with me. A lot of people are out there saying a lot of things about a case that is emotional and could be a very important decision and at least half of it isn't true.

Not having the time or ability to read the documents or grasp all the complexities doesn't bother me. This stuff is really technical and a lot of it complicated, even attorneys in other practice areas can have trouble with the concepts (then again, I probably couldn't conduct even a reasonably decent trial either). But misinformation being spread is a sort of pet peeve. And there's soooo much of it out there, it's easy to latch onto and form an opinion based on bad info.

Which is why I love primary sources.

Yeah. Studying old docs is pretty interesting. Seems the US Constitution is always being debated but so many get it wrong. Like where is the Separation of Church and state in the constitution? Nowhere. But so many claim it is.

One of my profs used to say you could indict a ham-sammich. He also said that if you have enough money you can win regardless of the facts. I'm skeptical of this belief but because laws are so complex I think it's possible you can get a positive outcome even if you're guilty as sin.

I've studied heavily in Real Estate law which I was seriously thinking about going into. Last thing I wanted to be was a trial lawyer. It's much easier to close on 20 homes a day and pocket the closing fees instead of trying to convince a jury your client is innocent. I had 3 semesters of Paralegal under my belt and decided it wasn't for me. I got really fast at typing which helps here.

I'm not licensed in the state where I live now and I wouldn't want to go back to practicing anyway, but I spent the last few years in real estate as a title agent. Amazing some of the situations that come up...but after the world of appellate work it was kind of boring. Then the market tanked. *sigh*

I never did criminal except to work on a couple 5th Amendment appeals. There are a couple legal eagles around here who do criminal though. From what I've seen quality of representation does play a part, but I'm not sure money can get a positive outcome every time. A bad lawyer can sink you in any case though.

I know in this case if WBC loses it will be because they didn't preserve the sufficiency argument. The 4th didn't split over outcome or even whether the evidence was sufficient, but whether they could rule on sufficiency on an amicus waiver - when the WBC didn't bring it up but a party filing an amicus brief did. There are strict rules about when a Court can and cannot rule on an issue when it's only introduced in an amicus brief. But I doubt the Supremes will go into that, much as I wish they would. It would make for a nice narrow decision based on the facts that would have minimal to no impact on First Amendment law.

 

[mudwhistle]

TMI on the tits.

I just happen to have been interested in and following this case for a while now, and when I was practicing this sort of thing was my area - Federal appeals on mostly constitutional issues. So it's a thing with me. A lot of people are out there saying a lot of things about a case that is emotional and could be a very important decision and at least half of it isn't true.

Not having the time or ability to read the documents or grasp all the complexities doesn't bother me. This stuff is really technical and a lot of it complicated, even attorneys in other practice areas can have trouble with the concepts (then again, I probably couldn't conduct even a reasonably decent trial either). But misinformation being spread is a sort of pet peeve. And there's soooo much of it out there, it's easy to latch onto and form an opinion based on bad info.

Which is why I love primary sources.

Yeah. Studying old docs is pretty interesting. Seems the US Constitution is always being debated but so many get it wrong. Like where is the Separation of Church and state in the constitution? Nowhere. But so many claim it is.

One of my profs used to say you could indict a ham-sammich. He also said that if you have enough money you can win regardless of the facts. I'm skeptical of this belief but because laws are so complex I think it's possible you can get a positive outcome even if you're guilty as sin.

I've studied heavily in Real Estate law which I was seriously thinking about going into. Last thing I wanted to be was a trial lawyer. It's much easier to close on 20 homes a day and pocket the closing fees instead of trying to convince a jury your client is innocent. I had 3 semesters of Paralegal under my belt and decided it wasn't for me. I got really fast at typing which helps here.

I'm not licensed in the state where I live now and I wouldn't want to go back to practicing anyway, but I spent the last few years in real estate as a title agent. Amazing some of the situations that come up...but after the world of appellate work it was kind of boring. Then the market tanked. *sigh*

I never did criminal except to work on a couple 5th Amendment appeals. There are a couple legal eagles around here who do criminal though. From what I've seen quality of representation does play a part, but I'm not sure money can get a positive outcome every time. A bad lawyer can sink you in any case though.

I know in this case if WBC loses it will be because they didn't preserve the sufficiency argument. The 4th didn't split over outcome or even whether the evidence was sufficient, but whether they could rule on sufficiency on an amicus waiver - when the WBC didn't bring it up but a party filing an amicus brief did. There are strict rules about when a Court can and cannot rule on an issue when it's only introduced in an amicus brief. But I doubt the Supremes will go into that, much as I wish they would. It would make for a nice narrow decision based on the facts that would have minimal to no impact on First Amendment law.

Who filed the brief?

 

[goldcatt]

Yeah. Studying old docs is pretty interesting. Seems the US Constitution is always being debated but so many get it wrong. Like where is the Separation of Church and state in the constitution? Nowhere. But so many claim it is.

One of my profs used to say you could indict a ham-sammich. He also said that if you have enough money you can win regardless of the facts. I'm skeptical of this belief but because laws are so complex I think it's possible you can get a positive outcome even if you're guilty as sin.

I've studied heavily in Real Estate law which I was seriously thinking about going into. Last thing I wanted to be was a trial lawyer. It's much easier to close on 20 homes a day and pocket the closing fees instead of trying to convince a jury your client is innocent. I had 3 semesters of Paralegal under my belt and decided it wasn't for me. I got really fast at typing which helps here.

I'm not licensed in the state where I live now and I wouldn't want to go back to practicing anyway, but I spent the last few years in real estate as a title agent. Amazing some of the situations that come up...but after the world of appellate work it was kind of boring. Then the market tanked. *sigh*

I never did criminal except to work on a couple 5th Amendment appeals. There are a couple legal eagles around here who do criminal though. From what I've seen quality of representation does play a part, but I'm not sure money can get a positive outcome every time. A bad lawyer can sink you in any case though.

I know in this case if WBC loses it will be because they didn't preserve the sufficiency argument. The 4th didn't split over outcome or even whether the evidence was sufficient, but whether they could rule on sufficiency on an amicus waiver - when the WBC didn't bring it up but a party filing an amicus brief did. There are strict rules about when a Court can and cannot rule on an issue when it's only introduced in an amicus brief. But I doubt the Supremes will go into that, much as I wish they would. It would make for a nice narrow decision based on the facts that would have minimal to no impact on First Amendment law.

Who filed the brief?

At the 4th? You know, I don't remember.

Let me see if you need PACER access for the briefs amici at Circuit. I don't think so....


Edit: It was the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression, the concurrence names the brief it came from.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not licensed in the state where I live now and I wouldn't want to go back to practicing anyway, but I spent the last few years in real estate as a title agent. Amazing some of the situations that come up...but after the world of appellate work it was kind of boring. Then the market tanked. *sigh*

I never did criminal except to work on a couple 5th Amendment appeals. There are a couple legal eagles around here who do criminal though. From what I've seen quality of representation does play a part, but I'm not sure money can get a positive outcome every time. A bad lawyer can sink you in any case though.

I know in this case if WBC loses it will be because they didn't preserve the sufficiency argument. The 4th didn't split over outcome or even whether the evidence was sufficient, but whether they could rule on sufficiency on an amicus waiver - when the WBC didn't bring it up but a party filing an amicus brief did. There are strict rules about when a Court can and cannot rule on an issue when it's only introduced in an amicus brief. But I doubt the Supremes will go into that, much as I wish they would. It would make for a nice narrow decision based on the facts that would have minimal to no impact on First Amendment law.

Who filed the brief?

At the 4th? You know, I don't remember.

Let me see if you need PACER access for the briefs amici at Circuit. I don't think so....


Edit: It was the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression, the concurrence names the brief it came from.

I found their website.

Guess what they're talking about?

The Thomas Jefferson Center For the Protection of Free Expression

 

[mudwhistle]

Also found a letter from Thomas Jefferson which seems to be the source of the Separation of Church and State argument.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802

Funny the things you find when you're pointed in the right direction.

 

[mudwhistle]

And then I found this article:

The Westboro Baptist Church politely shows the court how to be rude. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

 

[Sky Dancer]

Westboro Baptist Church makes the closet bigots seem tolerant.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Everyone in America wondered why.


Well, wonder no more, my friends. It appears that at least a few of the justices really, really, really just hate the Phelps family and its manner of protest, and they might even be willing to whip up a little new First Amendment law to prove it.

The Westboro Baptist Church politely shows the court how to be rude. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Guess we're not alone.

 

[goldcatt]

Who filed the brief?

At the 4th? You know, I don't remember.

Let me see if you need PACER access for the briefs amici at Circuit. I don't think so....


Edit: It was the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression, the concurrence names the brief it came from.

I found their website.

Guess what they're talking about?

The Thomas Jefferson Center For the Protection of Free Expression

Yep, they're big into separation of Church & State and the liberal view of First Amendment in general. They're Jeffersonians, what do you expect? This particular argument though was on sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law. Under the facts is there proof of harm? I'm not sure there is, not with these facts.

Scalia was the only one to really address the sufficiency argument, but was trying to get anybody to focus on a specific issue without a whole lot of luck. Scalia does have a lot of clout on the "conservative" side, but with Kennedy a P&I guy I wonder if he can put together a majority on those grounds - assuming he's really interested in the question. Can't believe I'm rooting for Scalia on anything but if he can pull off that kind of narrow decision I'll take back.....a few of the nasty things I've said about him over the years.

Oh well, we'll find out in a couple months. It's all speculation at this point. They could pull out a rabbit and shock us all.

 

[mudwhistle]

At the 4th? You know, I don't remember.

Let me see if you need PACER access for the briefs amici at Circuit. I don't think so....


Edit: It was the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression, the concurrence names the brief it came from.

I found their website.

Guess what they're talking about?

The Thomas Jefferson Center For the Protection of Free Expression

Yep, they're big into separation of Church & State and the liberal view of First Amendment in general. They're Jeffersonians, what do you expect? This particular argument though was on sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law. Under the facts is there proof of harm? I'm not sure there is, not with these facts.

Scalia was the only one to really address the sufficiency argument, but was trying to get anybody to focus on a specific issue without a whole lot of luck. Scalia does have a lot of clout on the "conservative" side, but with Kennedy a P&I guy I wonder if he can put together a majority on those grounds - assuming he's really interested in the question. Can't believe I'm rooting for Scalia on anything but if he can pull off that kind of narrow decision I'll take back.....a few of the nasty things I've said about him over the years.

Oh well, we'll find out in a couple months. It's all speculation at this point. They could pull out a rabbit and shock us all.

What are the odds that enough of them have some balls.

Who's to tell them they're wrong?

I'm not counting on it going Snyders way....but if if it does I expect it to pass like a mouse fart in a hurricane.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know this is a hypothetical....but if internet postings by Westboro were enough to cause Mr Snyder to ether commit a crime or suicide would WBC be libel?

It only took a video being shown on the net to cause a Gay college student to commit suicide. I hear the perps might get 5 years for merely a prank.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I can't believe anyone takes WBC seriously.

 

[bodecea]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.
I wonder why that is?

This church is so anti-Gay that they're going around the country protesting the funerals of military men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the infamous "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. I see nobody saying a thing about them. Could it be that the left sees them as an asset?

I remember the fight that ensued when Pres. Bill Clinton suggested the policy and now that the left doesn't think it goes far enough and wants to get rid of it perhaps the Westboro Baptist Church is doing their dirty work.

I believe this is an example of a policy that is middle-of-the-road that nether extreme likes. So the Democrats want to get rid of it but for different reasons then these disgusting nincompoops. They feel it doesn't go far enough. They would rather trash patriots then allow any Gays to exist among their ranks. One would think they would have Saturday afternoon stoning parties just for general purposes. These people are complete morons.

Ozzy Osborne is really pissed because these idiots are singing a counterfeit version of his song "Crazy Train". Ozzy Osbourne Disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church for Hate Message - Softpedia

They love singing "You're going straight to hell on a crazy train".

Kind of reminds me of a bunch of Charles Manson freaks.

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

Do you feel that freedom of speech overrules everything in this country, peace and common-decency notwithstanding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8dZWUNEjY&feature=player_embedded


Supreme Court hears arguments on protests at military funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church - ABC News

Then you sure as Hell aren't paying any attention.

 

[bodecea]

they are stooges. the so called minister is the former chief Atty in religious cases for the TN ACLU.

they are as ignorant of the bible as they are of decency, honesty and morals.

The reason they get a bit of a pass from the left is that they a great big "I told you so" about the left's fantasy of what religion is, and who religious are.

They are confirmation of and proof for bigotry.

I'd like to see that "bit of a pass" if you please....

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yeah.....son of a biatch.

Makes you want to go out and smack somebody, doesn't it? Finally somebody'll get those bastards....D'oh! Maybe not. Shit!

Honestly, I can't imagine a world where Hustler doesn't apply to private individuals if the information is public and viewed through web content. Or even print. Can't use strong negative opinion or hyperbole utilizing public information about individuals or identifiable groups without liability?

We'd all be wearing muzzles. Can you imagine Current Events? The Flame Zone? Noooooo....!!!!

Where's Eric Rudolph when you need him.

We need a guy like him that hates fake Christians with bad hairdos. BOOM

One of Rudolf's crimes was to bomb a gay night club. He and Phelps would get along very well.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.
I wonder why that is?

This church is so anti-Gay that they're going around the country protesting the funerals of military men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the infamous "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. I see nobody saying a thing about them. Could it be that the left sees them as an asset?

I remember the fight that ensued when Pres. Bill Clinton suggested the policy and now that the left doesn't think it goes far enough and wants to get rid of it perhaps the Westboro Baptist Church is doing their dirty work.

I believe this is an example of a policy that is middle-of-the-road that nether extreme likes. So the Democrats want to get rid of it but for different reasons then these disgusting nincompoops. They feel it doesn't go far enough. They would rather trash patriots then allow any Gays to exist among their ranks. One would think they would have Saturday afternoon stoning parties just for general purposes. These people are complete morons.

Ozzy Osborne is really pissed because these idiots are singing a counterfeit version of his song "Crazy Train". Ozzy Osbourne Disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church for Hate Message - Softpedia

They love singing "You're going straight to hell on a crazy train".

Kind of reminds me of a bunch of Charles Manson freaks.

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

Do you feel that freedom of speech overrules everything in this country, peace and common-decency notwithstanding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8dZWUNEjY&feature=player_embedded


Supreme Court hears arguments on protests at military funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church - ABC News

Then you sure as Hell aren't paying any attention.

Exactly. The left was against them, when the right was defending them. That was back when they were just bashing "fags" and protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims. Interesting how bashing the Phelps clan has now become chic on the right.

 

[Ravi]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

This church is so anti-Gay that they're going around the country protesting the funerals of military men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the infamous "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. I see nobody saying a thing about them. Could it be that the left sees them as an asset?

I remember the fight that ensued when Pres. Bill Clinton suggested the policy and now that the left doesn't think it goes far enough and wants to get rid of it perhaps the Westboro Baptist Church is doing their dirty work.

I believe this is an example of a policy that is middle-of-the-road that nether extreme likes. So the Democrats want to get rid of it but for different reasons then these disgusting nincompoops. They feel it doesn't go far enough. They would rather trash patriots then allow any Gays to exist among their ranks. One would think they would have Saturday afternoon stoning parties just for general purposes. These people are complete morons.

Ozzy Osborne is really pissed because these idiots are singing a counterfeit version of his song "Crazy Train". Ozzy Osbourne Disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church for Hate Message - Softpedia

They love singing "You're going straight to hell on a crazy train".

Kind of reminds me of a bunch of Charles Manson freaks.

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

Do you feel that freedom of speech overrules everything in this country, peace and common-decency notwithstanding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8dZWUNEjY&feature=player_embedded


Supreme Court hears arguments on protests at military funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church - ABC News

Why do you hate "conservative" Americans?

 

[del]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

This church is so anti-Gay that they're going around the country protesting the funerals of military men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the infamous "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. I see nobody saying a thing about them. Could it be that the left sees them as an asset?

I remember the fight that ensued when Pres. Bill Clinton suggested the policy and now that the left doesn't think it goes far enough and wants to get rid of it perhaps the Westboro Baptist Church is doing their dirty work.

I believe this is an example of a policy that is middle-of-the-road that nether extreme likes. So the Democrats want to get rid of it but for different reasons then these disgusting nincompoops. They feel it doesn't go far enough. They would rather trash patriots then allow any Gays to exist among their ranks. One would think they would have Saturday afternoon stoning parties just for general purposes. These people are complete morons.

Ozzy Osborne is really pissed because these idiots are singing a counterfeit version of his song "Crazy Train". Ozzy Osbourne Disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church for Hate Message - Softpedia

They love singing "You're going straight to hell on a crazy train".

Kind of reminds me of a bunch of Charles Manson freaks.

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

Do you feel that freedom of speech overrules everything in this country, peace and common-decency notwithstanding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8dZWUNEjY&feature=player_embedded


Supreme Court hears arguments on protests at military funerals by members of Westboro Baptist Church - ABC News

Why do you hate "conservative" Americans?

something to do with viet nam as i recall.