Listening to Justice Blackmun say "schmuck" repeatedly here in serious tones was something. This is calling really splitting hairs:
See here for some good coverage on both. The latter one might be closely tied to its facts, but disgusting as it might be, I think the funeral picketing case is a slamdunk.* The last account by a senior Supreme Court onlooker underlines the fallacy of suggesting that empathy and passion isn't mixed in here. It also seems a bit ironic that it was the "liberals" who at times tried to be more focused on legal matters, particularly the women among them. Passion is spread out, but the conservatives justices repeatedly are not just concerned about the law, but do so with an edge in their voice. A dry transcript would not give us a full feel of such an oral argument.
Interesting term right out of the gate.
---
* The hosts of the weekly advocacy show Gay USA have opposed laws that silence people, even when they voice hateful rhetoric. There is a line where speech becomes harassment, but if these people were protesting in public -- a point made by one of the hosts on this very issue -- how can we silence them? See also, here. There should be no "funeral exception" to the First Amendment. There can be some sort of buffer zone but particularly for funerals of public note, it can't be endless.
[I later said some more about this case in response to a Slate post here.]
I concur in the judgment of the Court though I do not join its opinion. I join Justice O’Connor’s opinion except insofar as it joins that of the Court. I join Part I of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, but I do not dissent from the Court’s reversal of the District Court’s decision.The advocate for Rev. Phelps today in front of the Supreme Court is his daughter, a "study in contradictions." Yes, homophobes do come in all kinds. I'll be sure to listen to this argument when the Supreme Court releases it in a few days per its new audio policy. The information privacy case also sounds interesting, a chance to address what the Court only dealt with explicitly in a few cases (including Whalen v. Roe). As Justice Douglas noted in his Doe v. Bolton concurrence, limits on providing private information to the government has a long history.
See here for some good coverage on both. The latter one might be closely tied to its facts, but disgusting as it might be, I think the funeral picketing case is a slamdunk.* The last account by a senior Supreme Court onlooker underlines the fallacy of suggesting that empathy and passion isn't mixed in here. It also seems a bit ironic that it was the "liberals" who at times tried to be more focused on legal matters, particularly the women among them. Passion is spread out, but the conservatives justices repeatedly are not just concerned about the law, but do so with an edge in their voice. A dry transcript would not give us a full feel of such an oral argument.
Interesting term right out of the gate.
---
* The hosts of the weekly advocacy show Gay USA have opposed laws that silence people, even when they voice hateful rhetoric. There is a line where speech becomes harassment, but if these people were protesting in public -- a point made by one of the hosts on this very issue -- how can we silence them? See also, here. There should be no "funeral exception" to the First Amendment. There can be some sort of buffer zone but particularly for funerals of public note, it can't be endless.
[I later said some more about this case in response to a Slate post here.]