Lazenby: Supreme First Amendment Hypocrisy
In the middle of the month in which its decisions for the year are handed down, the Supreme Court ofYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
In the middle of the month in which its decisions for the year are handed down, the Supreme Court ofYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
59 comments
“…no more likely to be swayed by people picketing outside that building than they are by the evening news, which they are not prohibited from watching as they pen their opinions.”
I could not have possibly said it better Mrs. Lazenby. Bravo!!
A US President is using the IRS to target non-leftist political enemies…
Until that is mitigated (and Obama is punished)…NOTHING liberals have to say MATTERS…
You have NO right to complain about any violation by the courts or the law, until you abide by the law…You are FILTHY in Corruption..and acting like you are an authority will only be accepted by the Ignorant and Stupid….
“…no more likely to be swayed by people picketing outside that building than they are by the evening news, which they are not prohibited from watching as they pen their opinions.”
I could not have possibly said it better Mrs. Lazenby. Bravo!!
The magic scroll has lost its fairy dust! (plagiarized, but funny none the less)
Yeah, a little more each day…
The magic scroll has lost its fairy dust! (plagiarized, but funny none the less)
Yeah, a little more each day…
** meanwhile over at Wil Folks TARROT Card parlor **
Mrs Folks: Wow….what a great article by Amy. BRAVO..! I wish my husband had hired her years ago this article is so instructional and educational…!!
Amy Lazenby : Yes, I know…..its just took me a few minutes to whip this out..!
Tarrot Reader: I see dark clouds….
Mrs Folks:….. Really..!?
Amy: Clouds to the left of me, smoke to the right of me…here I am stuck in the middle with out advertisers…!!
Ghost of “Tara”: …..Yeah, all I see is a lot of hot air ….and ugly shoes..!! Amy, you need to get real and tell your readers just exactly how to squeeze some Judicial “juice” right here in the comment section of FITSNEWS. Amy, you have guts; but idiots have GUTS too..! Amy, are you smart enough to understand how to find out how a Supreme Court Judge spends his time in church…or NOT..?? How could that be used against him or her in a court of LAW..? Its women like you who caused the outbreak of war between the states in the first place..!!
Jenny Sanford: ….Will someone read Amy’s Tarrot cards…??
Nancy Mace:……well, Jenny, lets see here. Ah..yes….yes….oh dear….oh no……I had no idea…!!
Amy: ….What….what….WHAT..?? (scream)
Nancy Mace………if a comment can steer an advertiser then how can an advertiser steer campaign slush to fund a politician who appoints or confirms a judge….you idiot..!!
Amy: …I had no idea…?
Ghost of “Tara”: ……stuff it missy…..do you know how to “ask” your concerned readers to do anything except go stand on a street corner and get arrested for the evening NEWS…??
Nancy Mace: ….yeah, Amy, what donors to Tim Scott or Mark Sanford or Robert Ford are tied to companies who do WHAT for the Supreme Court building cleaning contract..!! We wonder if Amy has ever been told the story of Jericho..?
Jenny Sanford:…….hmm, we wonder if those troops who surrounded Jericho in the Bible would be wearing uniforms like NASCAR drivers to ..earn MONEY..??
Amy:……..I don’t understand?
Mrs Wil Folks:……..My husband may have made a mistake by hiring you then…@!
We get it. You don’t like the site. You don’t like Amy and you don’t like Will. Trust me; we get it.
Now if he would just go away… I know FITS allows all comments, but sometimes it would be nice if he screened out the weirdos. Oh well, free speech.
** meanwhile over at Wil Folks TARROT Card parlor **
Mrs Folks: Wow….what a great article by Amy. BRAVO..! I wish my husband had hired her years ago this article is so instructional and educational…!!
Amy Lazenby : Yes, I know…..its just took me a few minutes to whip this out..!
Tarrot Reader: I see dark clouds….
Mrs Folks:….. Really..!?
Amy: Clouds to the left of me, smoke to the right of me…here I am stuck in the middle with out advertisers…!!
Ghost of “Tara”: …..Yeah, all I see is a lot of hot air ….and ugly shoes..!! Amy, you need to get real and tell your readers just exactly how to squeeze some Judicial “juice” right here in the comment section of FITSNEWS. Amy, you have guts; but idiots have GUTS too..! Amy, are you smart enough to understand how to find out how a Supreme Court Judge spends his time in church…or NOT..?? How could that be used against him or her in a court of LAW..? Its women like you who caused the outbreak of war between the states in the first place..!!
Jenny Sanford: ….Will someone read Amy’s Tarrot cards…??
Nancy Mace:……well, Jenny, lets see here. Ah..yes….yes….oh dear….oh no……I had no idea…!!
Amy: ….What….what….WHAT..?? (scream)
Nancy Mace………if a comment can steer an advertiser then how can an advertiser steer campaign slush to fund a politician who appoints or confirms a judge….you idiot..!!
Amy: …I had no idea…?
Ghost of “Tara”: ……stuff it missy…..do you know how to “ask” your concerned readers to do anything except go stand on a street corner and get arrested for the evening NEWS…??
Nancy Mace: ….yeah, Amy, what donors to Tim Scott or Mark Sanford or Robert Ford are tied to companies who do WHAT for the Supreme Court building cleaning contract..!! We wonder if Amy has ever been told the story of Jericho..?
Jenny Sanford:…….hmm, we wonder if those troops who surrounded Jericho in the Bible would be wearing uniforms like NASCAR drivers to ..earn MONEY..??
Amy:……..I don’t understand?
Mrs Wil Folks:……..My husband may have made a mistake by hiring you then…@!
We get it. You don’t like the site. You don’t like Amy and you don’t like Will. Trust me; we get it.
Now if he would just go away… I know FITS allows all comments, but sometimes it would be nice if he screened out the weirdos. Oh well, free speech.
Pretty good piece, Amy. I look forward to reading more.
Pretty good piece, Amy. I look forward to reading more.
Is it a slow news day or something? Restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech are perfectly acceptable and are settled law.
Settled. So that’s why the fed judge overturned that law restricting a “place of speech” as unconstitutional just this week, huh?
Restrictions on place of speech are, without quesiton, Constitutional. However, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored and reasonable. The judge threw out the law because it was too broad and, in his opinion, not reasonable. He did not throw it out because the government can’t restrict place of speech. Settled.
Lazenby seems to agree with you that the law is settled in this paragraph, but if the police can arrest anyone who is disruptive, then why does the court feel the need to make a special rule here, and is that rule justified (oh, and the judge was a “she”)?
“The rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are not absolute, as the
courts have held, but in this case there are already mechanisms in place
to ensure that suitable decorum is maintained. Americans have a right
to peaceably assemble and protest. Anyone who breaks a law in the
process of such a protest can be arrested, and, as Judge Howell noted
in her opinion striking down the 1949 law, the D.C. police are already
authorized to arrest anyone who attempts to block the entrance to the
court.”
The rule is justified because the SCOTUS believes that it is justified. That’s pretty much settles it. Sorry about the mistake on the judge’s sex.
And SCOTUS never reverses itself, right?
“The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.”
She didn’t say that it does. She said that “The rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are not absolute, as the courts have held…”
I believe you missed the author’s point, which was not that free speech can’t be restricted, but that the “plaza” in front of the Supreme Court should not be one of the places in which this type of speech is restricted.
Is it a slow news day or something? Restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech are perfectly acceptable and are settled law.
Settled. So that’s why the fed judge overturned that law restricting a “place of speech” as unconstitutional just this week, huh?
Restrictions on place of speech are, without quesiton, Constitutional. However, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored and reasonable. The judge threw out the law because it was too broad and, in his opinion, not reasonable. He did not throw it out because the government can’t restrict place of speech. Settled.
Edited to add: I hate seeing blog posts like this and the comments on them because they remind me what a miserable job we do of teaching civics in this country. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.
Lazenby seems to agree with you that the law is settled in this paragraph, but if the police can arrest anyone who is disruptive, then why does the court feel the need to make a special rule here, and is that rule justified (oh, and the judge was a “she”)?
“The rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are not absolute, as the
courts have held, but in this case there are already mechanisms in place
to ensure that suitable decorum is maintained. Americans have a right
to peaceably assemble and protest. Anyone who breaks a law in the
process of such a protest can be arrested, and, as Judge Howell noted
in her opinion striking down the 1949 law, the D.C. police are already
authorized to arrest anyone who attempts to block the entrance to the
court.”
The rule is justified because the SCOTUS believes that it is justified. That’s pretty much settles it. Sorry about the mistake on the judge’s sex.
And SCOTUS never reverses itself, right?
“The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.”
She didn’t say that it does. She said that “The rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are not absolute, as the courts have held…”
I believe you missed the author’s point, which was not that free speech can’t be restricted, but that the “plaza” in front of the Supreme Court should not be one of the places in which this type of speech is restricted.
I agree folks have a right to protest, but protests in the Supreme Court plaza should not have any influence on the decisions of the Justices. Their job is to decide based on the facts and the constitution, not of the whims of the mob outside. Perhaps the protests would be more effective outside of the Capitol or the White House.
I agree that the protests don’t necessarily sway the judges, but people should be able to protest what they think are unjust laws. That’s what America is all about – the freedom to do that. At least the people who are there to protest care enough to get out and do something. And I totally agree about protesting at the Capitol where the laws are actually made to prevent those laws from passing in the first place.
I agree folks have a right to protest, but protests in the Supreme Court plaza should not have any influence on the decisions of the Justices. Their job is to decide based on the facts and the constitution, not of the whims of the mob outside. Perhaps the protests would be more effective outside of the Capitol or the White House.
I agree that the protests don’t necessarily sway the judges, but people should be able to protest what they think are unjust laws. That’s what America is all about – the freedom to do that. At least the people who are there to protest care enough to get out and do something. And I totally agree about protesting at the Capitol where the laws are actually made to prevent those laws from passing in the first place.
What has the SCOTUS said about a president using the IRS to target politcal enemies????…
When you can report on something pertinent, you may earn an audience…
I don’t Mr. Professional Writer. Maybe you should use your grand journalistic abilities and get back to us?
What has (will) the SCOTUS said about a president using the IRS to target politcal enemies????…
When you can report on something pertinent, you may earn an audience…
Otherwise, you come across as disingenuious. Not a good characteristic for a writer, especially when so much is going wrong in our country, due to a corrupt government…
Writers must challenge power gone bad. Don’t slime and discredit yourself by co-opting the most hidieous of abuses…
You and Darrell Issa have no proof of any of this.
“Blah blah blah you may earn an audience.”
Looks like she’s already got one.
“Blah blah blah you come across as disingenuous.”
Have you read your own comments lately?
“Writers must challenge power gone bad.”
She just challenged a rule set by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court hasn’t said anything about the recent IRS scandal because no one’s brought a case yet. You see, Big T, the Supreme Court can’t rule on something unless a case has made it up through the court system to it – that’s how the system works, my man. Instead of trying to “educate” a good writer based on, wait, what qualifications do you have again? Yeah, instead of trying to educate a good writer who doesn’t happen to be writing about what you want her to write about (and why would she?), why don’t you go back to civics class?
Well done, sir or madame, well done.
She’s reporting on SMALL POTATOES…Using the IRS to target politcal enemies is as big a threat to our democracy as Hitler was…
There should be 24-hour OUTRAGE until that hideous scandal is honestly mitigated…
Nothing legally should matter, until the Corruption we’re now being suffocated with is addressed…
Small potatoes? Is that what your girl calls them?
This is like being consumed w/ a land mind, while Nagasaki and Hiroshima are going up…and I think that is this dis-honest “writer’s” attempt…
“a land mind” — Is this something like having your head stuck in a hole in the ground?
I’m gonna go with “Turd” there, Shifty…
Wow. Amy, you’ve bought Big T out of hiding. That’s a good thing. As long as he is spending his time posting his comments to this blog, he can’t act on his hostilities on a large scale anywhere in the state. You have performed a great public service.
Wow. Amy, you’ve bought Big T out of hiding. That’s a good thing. As long as he is spending his time posting his comments to this blog, he can’t act on his hostilities on a large scale anywhere in the state. You have performed a great public service.
Another saying from my family’s traditions—
“You may not be able to fight City Hall and win, but you can shit on the courthouse steps and leave a big stink!”
Unless it’s the Supreme Court – then you’ll have to shit on the sidewalk!
Another saying from my family’s traditions—
“You may not be able to fight City Hall and win, but you can shit on the courthouse steps and leave a big stink!”
Unless it’s the Supreme Court – then you’ll have to shit on the sidewalk!