In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011)

Torn from today’s headlines:

A          “Justices Rule For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals” also reported as “High Court Rules For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals”  The National Public Radio

B          “Justices Rule For Protestors At Military Funerals”  The New York Times

C          “Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Church’s Right To Picket Funerals”  The Washington Post

D          “Supreme Court Sides With Churchgoers Who Picketed Military Funeral”  The Los Angeles Times

E          “Supreme Court Says Anti-Gay Protestors Have A Right To Demonstrate At Military Funerals”  The Chicago Tribune

F          “First Amendment Protects ‘Hurtful’ Speech, Court Says”  The Wall Street Journal

What is The most correct answer?  F

. . .

G          “Sexy headlines sell.”

H          “Didn’t the Supreme Court simply affirm the First Amendment?”

G          “Exactly.  However, if a sexy headline attracts more readers, go for it.  We need people to read.  And think.  And support the newspaper.”

H          “There are winners and there are losers which may be what the public really is interested in tracking.”

G          “Perhaps the decisions should be posted in the Sports section of the newspaper.”

H          “Judges often make result oriented decisions.  They decide who should win and then spin the facts and law to make the outcome appear to the reader to be a fait accompli and beyond reasonable dispute.”

G          “In this case, the Justices looked at the law.  They acknowledge the hate that motivates the speakers and the hateful message they deliver and reaffirm the fundamental right.  Every attempt to formulate an exception undermines the most important Amendment.”

H          “I read that Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Senate and a few dozen members of Congress filed a brief on behalf of the family.  They endured the vile and evil actions and statements of the protestors.  Can’t they just go away.”

G          “Law should be removed from the political process.  The Supreme Court redeemed itself again in this case and the case involving the Federal Communications Commission and AT&T.  The winds are blowing from a different direction.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” dated June 25, 2007 titled “The Supreme Court On Drugs” and dated January 25, 2010 titled “Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game” discussing bad hair days at the Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I get along with God just fine; it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand.

I’m a big fan of God; I’m not a big fan of his fanatics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: