Marco Rubio: Constitutional Scholar

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Supreme Court majority opinion for SNYDER v. PHELPS. The Supreme Court ruled that the mean-spirited protests of the Westboro Baptist Church was protected under the First amendment.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Roberts acknowledged that Westboro did the protest of fallen military veterans to gain publicity. Where Roberts drew the line was in restricting free speech. That doesn't stop Marco Rubio from being a co-sponsor of the bill Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans.

Rubio, a first-term Republican from Miami, added his name to the list of senatorial sponsors.

"The men and women of our military who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country deserve to be buried in peace and with honor," Rubio said in a statement issued this week. "I'm proud to support this common sense legislation that honors our nation's heroes."

The proposed bill is backed by a variety of military support groups, including the gold Star Wives of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Several of our members have been forced to endure these unseemly, irreverent protests at the funerals of their beloved fallen spouse," said a statement released by the Gold Star Wives. "Losing a beloved husband or wife is traumatic enough without also having to endure these protestors and their nasty signs and obnoxious behavior."

Lawmakers making legislation that is suppose to serve a narrow cause is always a bad idea. Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature approved Terri's law. The sole goal of the bill was to keep the brain dead Terri Schiavo from being taken off life support. Conservatives lost every legal battle on the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Schiavo case.

Terri's law was unconstitutional because it violated to Equal Protection clause. All laws are suppose to apply equally. Laws can not be made to apply to a single person. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because they only applied to blacks. What Rubio is co-sponsoring violates the first and 14 amendments of the constitution.

Write A Caption: Do-over Oath

Let's try this again.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," obama replied.

Quote of the Day

"My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts."

Joe Biden

Shorter Fox News: Obama Didn't Take the Oath

Chief Justice John Roberts had the horrible idea of reciting the oath from memory. Roberts screwed up badly. Fox News' Chris Wallace is running the meme that Obama may not be president. Matt Drudge is running with this nonsense. The worst that will happen is Obama would have to retake the oath. That is unlikely to happen.

Side note: do conservatives really want to endure Joe Biden's State of the Union address. Think about it?

About Those Activist Judges

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Eighth amendment

Conservatives constantly argue that only strict constructionist Justices should serve on the Supreme Court. Republicans argue that the courts are filled with too many activist liberal judges. It is painfully obvious that Justice Antonin Scalia took an activist role in his dissent of the Court's Lawrence et al. v. TEXAS decision. Scalia made the bizarre argument that sexual actitity is not a Constitution right. Scalia supported Texas law enforcement officers continuing to arrest consenting male adults for engaging in anal sex in the privacy of their homes.

Chief Justice John Roberts interpretation of the Eighth amendment shows a deep contempt for the Constitution.

“A slightly or marginally safer alternative” would not suffice, the chief justice said. He added: “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.

Roberts is creating such a huge loophole to continue executions. I get that Roberts supports the death penalty. That doesn't give him the right to disregard the Eighth amendment.

Justice John Paul Stevens urged for abolishing the death penalty. That is a state policy decision. Governors know the death penalty is popular with constituents. They aren't about to fuck up their re-election chances.

The Eighth amendment protects prisoners from assault from undue assault and torture from law enforcement and guards. Without the amendment, citizens would be at the mercy of their captors. Conservatives believe it is patriotic to toss the Eight amendment and habeas corpus out. Alberto Gonzales went as far as to argue against habeas corpus.



Conservatives lack the courage to come out and say that they could care less if people suffer when they are executed. Instead, they frame their arguments and make weird analogies. Republicans candidates and op-ed columnists use Dred Scott to talk about abortion. Nevermind, that slavery and abortion have little to do with each other. The majority of voters will reject overturning Roe v. Wade. That is why the GOP uses weird talking points.

A political party has activist judges, but it isn't the Democrats.