News of the day

^ Well, that's one of those things about the issue: the Supreme Court keeps following the Constitution like a rulebook when it needs some serious doctoring.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - July 14 2014 at 10:45

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ Well, that's one of those things about the issue: the Supreme Court keeps following the Constitution like a rulebook when it needs some serious doctoring.

That's kind of what the Constitution was meant to be, a rulebook.      And one of the problems is, once you start "doctoring" it, you might as well just throw the rulebook in the trash because it can be abrogated at a whim. And I think there has been too much doctoring of the Constitution already in the name of a recently closed thread.   

That said, two things about this ruling is that while I believe the 1st Amendment should be a near absolute, and that people have a right to say what they want but do not have a right to not hear what they don't want to hear, there is nothing wrong with time, place, manner restrictions. I don't think the 35 feet rule in any way infringes on the 1st Amendment right to speech. Also, you do have to wonder at the motives of the protesters as their time would be much better spent protesting in front of Congress, their state capitol or the Supreme Court instead of in front of an obviously completely hostile audience. They should be working to change the laws, reverse Roe v. Wade or whatever. Protesting in front of abortion clinics really accomplishes very little and hasn't done so in 40 years.

Edited by The Doctor - July 14 2014 at 10:56

Protesting in front of clinics and at women who probably are suffering much more than they are is not expressing speech, is harassment, aggressive behavior, infringing on other people's rights. 

In the US the right to believe in a mighty being in the sky trumps any other right. 

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ Well, that's one of those things about the issue: the Supreme Court keeps following the Constitution like a rulebook when it needs some serious doctoring.

Well, thanks for clarifying your position. The article was straightforward, I didn't think the way you worderd your post was. My bad for not understanding, maybe..

Anyhow, I do essentially agree with you. If the anti abortin mob want to protest that's fine. I don't think they should be challenged on that but I think it's wrong they can actually get in the face of patients - probably stressed enough as it is facing an abortion procdure that will in many cases impact their emotional wellbeing for the rest of their lives. They coud feel ther physical well being seriously threatened by sme lunatic yelling at them too.

I guess the supreme have little choice but to follow the constitution in these cases (?)

Agreed Doc.  Protestors should not be able to infringe on the rights of others, block traffic, break stuff, trash public spaces, etc.  They certainly should not be able to intimidate patrons of a clinic, or a church, or a business.  Protestors on all sides of the ideological spectrum often act like buffoons. 

No.  Everyone's goals are noble to them.  No one should be able to infringe, intimidate, or destroy.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't excuse poor/criminal behaviour for some and condemn it for others.  

Doc, it's good to see you around again my friend, did you take hiatus?

Understand completely.....sometimes ya just gotta unplug it all for a while.  

A Malaysian airliner has been shot down over Ukraine, killing 295 people:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crash-airplane-idUSKBN0FM1TU20140717