An amazing admission by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer..maybe burning a Qu'ran isn't covered by the First Amendment...
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.
“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” {..}
“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think.And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”
Is Breyer planning on implementing laws against blasphemy...but only where Islam is concerned?
Given how the Court has reacted to things like submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine or desecrating Bibles, this is a Supreme Court justice essentially saying that in America, your right to be free of criticism of your religion and its artifacts likely depends on how violent you're willing to be in reaction to it.
Or maybe Breyer is really saying that Muslims have a disability and need to be treated differently than others?
Couldn't the the same standards applied to the Ground Zero Mosque, a place where people actually died? If Christians began threatening violence to stop it, is Justice Breyer saying that building the Mosque ought to be constitutionally prohibited?
Can you imagine how Justice Breyer would rule in a case involving Muslims threatening violence unless they got sharia courts in America ?
2 comments:
THink your allusion to disability rights is this context is not accurate. The laws governing disability rights is to make an uneven playing field even for those with disabilities, whether its wheelchair ramps, or accommodations at school and work. It does not mean that those with disabilities can violate basic law, ethics or morals of society because they are disabled.Also remember the disabled are not considered a special class. Justice Ginsburg states that the disabled have been made a "class" due to the ADA, but that is all-it is not consitutionally endowed (it was also done in a dissenting opinion and if memory serves in a footnote.The name of the particular case escpaes me at the moment. If I remember it I will let you know) I also know you are a friend and supporter of the disability community so I am not worried about your take on Breyer's statement. :)
What Breyer is alluding to is to society giving in to violent demands because its safer to give in and avoid violence. This is a slippery slope when violence or threat of violence replaces the rule of law. It is not only anarchy it is how fascists have literally taken control of many democracies in the past. Yes, I am alluding to the advent of Nazi Germany; fascist Spain and Italy also do come to mind as well.(while they all used democratic aegisis they did use violent methods to bring their dreams of control to fruition as well. These two methodologies go hand in hand with this poltiical philosphy. The advent of Communist Russia is also a good historical reality to explore in this context lets not forget them)
Remember those in special classes are those who have suffered historical discrimination. So perhaps what Breyer is doing is beating the "Americans are Islamophobic" drum. That is very sad to see from an otherwise brilliant jurist.
Hello IP,
L'Shana Tovah.
Obviously my remark about Muslims was intended to be sarcastic, but it is worth asking if he thinks Muslims have 'special needs' because of the tendencies of many of them towards violence....from his remark, it's obvious that he very well may.
And if he's talking about Muslims outside of the US, why would a US Supreme Court Justice be concerned with how US law applies to foreigners outside the country?
Breyer is a statist...note his position that rights do not come from the Constitution, but from cases and judges.
And the key point is that he is advocating special status for Islam vis a vis the First Amendment purely because Muslims react with violence.
This is an identical position to that advocated by the anti-Semitic Organization of Islamic Conferences and the Muslim dominated UN Human Rights Council.
Sorry, I would hardly refer to him as a brilliant jurist.
All Good Things,
Rob
Post a Comment