Breyer thinks we should consider foreign court decisions when making decisions on the Supreme Court.
The guy is a kook.

I wonder how he feels about placing a crucifix in a jar of urine? Art? If he has that opinion about the Koran, would that make him a bigot?

Go back to your ice cream business , your judgeship .

WOW! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy having him making big constitutional decisions for me.

The point Breyer is making, of course, is whether the expression has as its primary intent the exchange of an idea or merely provoking danger. It’s an interesting concept, and that’s hhow it was presented. In application, I should think he well might find that the act is content rich and protected.

As for the crucifix, you seem to really enjoy the imagery, but let’s remember that’s art. You’re rather comparing pickles to rebar, as you so often do.

MichelleF said:
WOW! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy having him making big constitutional decisions for me.

Yes, Breyer is no Roland Freisler, and more’s the pity for you, Michelle-in-Utah.

Did you watch the “19th Wife” last night?

Royal Race-Baiter/Religious Bigot says:

Did you watch the “19th Wife” last night?

Why am I not surprised you brought this up. I did NOT watch it. You’re a sad little man (and I use the word man very loosely, in this case).

MichelleF said:
Royal Race-Baiter/Religious Bigot says: Did you watch the “19th Wife” last night? Why am I not surprised you brought this up. I did NOT watch it. You’re a sad little man (and I use the word man very loosely, in this case).

The acting wasn’t really that good. Too bad. The Wallace and Ebershoff books were well-written, and Ms. Young’s story is compelling. They should be required reading in our schools, particularly in Utah.

No, burning a Koran will lead to a fire in a crowded theater.

Its not the Justice’s place to speculate on a case that might come before the court.

By the way, since Islam is the Religion of Peace shouldn’t any affront to that Religion result in a peaceful response by Muslims.

Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die.

“As for the crucifix, you seem to really enjoy the imagery, but let’s remember that’s art.”

Maybe in the perverted royal queeny’s psychotic kingdom that is considered art, quite offensive if you ask me.

notsofast said:
No, burning a Koran will lead to a fire in a crowded theater.

Not if Texas’ latest hero, Jacob Isom, is there!

Oh, please. This judge should be defending US freedoms, instead of advocating for exceptions to freedoms, when it comes to the religion of islam. If America gives up even one of its freedoms, based on fear of violence, from islamic extremists, then, America is just another cowardly liberal country, much like Europe has become. Muslims whom refuse to respect our freedoms, aren’t worthy of living in the US. This PC BS has to stop and muslims have to be set straight on how it is and how it will be. Special prayer accommodations, also, across America, for muslims, are unlawful and have to be halted. If our troops are fighting for our freedoms, why the hell are liberal wusses giving them away, based on PC and fear?

Penguin60 said:
quite offensive if you ask me.

I didn’t ask.

RichS said:
Its not the Justice’s place to speculate on a case that might come before the court.

Of course, he wasn’t. He was dealing with a concept, not a case. A case has attendant facts.

“I didn’t ask.”

Funny thing about the First Amendment queeny, tough shit.

You should take a break, you don’t have to be an asshole all the time.

Hey you Beck haters- the joke is on YOU:

“Stocks rose for a fifth day, the longest streak for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index since July, while gold surged to a record….”

Penguin60 said:
You should take a break, you don’t have to be an asshole all the time.

NSF needs a break sometime.

MichelleF said:
WOW! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy having him making big constitutional decisions for me.

No kidding. It’s very scary that he is taking into account the possible response of an illiterate screaming mob 5,000 miles away when deciding whether Americans may exercise their First Amendment liberties. If burning a flag is a form of free speech, so is burning a religious text.

notsofast said:
Hey you Beck haters- the joke is on YOU: “Stocks rose for a fifth day, the longest streak for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index since July, while gold surged to a record….”

You know, just the other day, I was passing a Chablis machine, and I was out of Euros. I thought if I had just paid outrageous fees, I could have bought one of those pieces of the Beckerhead’s gold, put it in a Cusiniart and taken a shaving to put in the Chablis machine. As it was, however, I was near a litte café which had a most delightful rosé. I used my American Express card. Sat in the sun, counted the number of Frenchwomen who don’t shave their underarms go by. So, it all worked out well without any of the noise and annoyance of Beckerhead.

Rescuedog said:
No kidding. It’s very scary that he is taking into account the possible response of an illiterate screaming mob 5,000 miles away when deciding whether Americans may exercise their First Amendment liberties. If burning a flag is a form of free speech, so is burning a religious text.

Maybe, you’d do well to remember that tens of thousands of Americans are far closer than 5K miles away. I suppose our troops don’t count to you, however.

The Real Royal King said:
Maybe, you’d do well to remember that tens of thousands of Americans are far closer than 5K miles away. I suppose our troops don’t count to you, however.

Funny, you didn’t think that way when you and your friends were marching in the streets, taking over colleges and sending Hanoi Jane to Vietnam to sit on an anti-aircraft gun and saying that American soldiers were lying when they said they were being tortured during the Vietnam war.

Yes, you really cared about the troops then, didn’t ya?

Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave us the word faggot for their burning homosexuals at the steak. Faggot: bundle of sticks.

This opinion by Breyer exposes him as an intellectual lightweight whose every judgment should be questioned now. A pastor advertises Burn a Koran Day and the media hound him like a presidential candidate, after which crazed Muslims in Kashmir riot, and he immediately wants to destroy the right to freedom of speech of all Americans because it’s like shouting fire in a crowded theater? First, the people in a theater are all on U.S. soil and U.S. jurisdiction, citizens in a foreign nation aren’t. Second, it’s the MEDIA that created the “crowded theater” by overcoverage of the pastor, so is this going to lead to the end of press freedom too? All Breyer is doing is submitting to the demands of Islam, and he is a disgrace who should step down immediately. The real issue is that America must never ever submit to any demands by Islam, the great enemy of the U.S. Constitution, from within or without. Keep up on daily world news about Islam free at http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch

NEWZMAKER————The first step to implement Islamic law is for the Supreme Court to rule that burning the Koran is not protected, for are own safety. JUST A LITTILE NUDGE.

I suppose I cared enough to be active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War when I returned from the military. I suppose I cared enough when I was helping pay for and arrange airfare for family members to get to various hospitals. I suppose I cared far more than you ever have.

This opinion by Breyer exposes him as an intellectual lightweight whose every judgment should be questioned now.

Perhaps that’s why Royal Race Baiter/Religious Bigot can relate to him.

DEFENDER-90 said:
for are own safety.

What does that even mean?

newzmaker said:
This judge should be defending US freedoms, instead of advocating for exceptions to freedoms, when it comes to the religion of islam.

That’s not his job. His job is to interpret the Constitution and law, not protect freedoms.

The Real Royal King said:
I suppose I cared enough to be active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War when I returned from the military.

Whose side were you on? It wasn’t the American side.

Well since you brought it up Defender:

Cass Sunstein’s new book Nudge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD-fUJs5t_k

This is Obama’s regulatory Czar, peeps.

MichelleF said:
This opinion by Breyer exposes him as an intellectual lightweight whose every judgment should be questioned now. Perhaps that’s why Royal Race Baiter/Religious Bigot can relate to him.

So, is it your position Ann Eliza is Brigham Young’s 19th, 27th or 52nd wife? Each of the positions has its own merits, and I tend think 27th may be the strongest since 27 were taken out of the rotation.

notsofast said:
Whose side were you on? It wasn’t the American side.

I was on the troops’ side, not Nixon’s/Kissinger’s/Westmoreland’s.

Stephen Hogan said:
That’s not his job. His job is to interpret the Constitution and law, not protect freedoms.

The 1st Amendment to the [Constitution] clearly defines our freedoms.

RichS said:
Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die.

That’s more than the Muslims at Acre got. They never got the choice when killed by the Crusaders.

I CALL IT IMPLEMENTATION BY INTIMIDATION

The Real Royal King said:
I was on the troops’ side, not Nixon’s/Kissinger’s/Westmoreland’s.

Yes, you were with the VC and the North’s “regulars.”

BTW, combat troops were first sent into Vietnam by JFK and LBJ. Nixon had to clean up the mess created by Democrats.

newzmaker said:
The 1st Amendment to the [Constitution] clearly defines our freedoms.

True, but it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to defend them, as you explicitly stated.

notsofast said:
Yes, you were with the VC and the North’s “regulars.” BTW, combat troops were first sent into Vietnam by JFK and LBJ. Nixon had to clean up the mess created by Democrats.

Actually, by Eisenhower, or Eisenhauer before he Anglicized his name.

The Real Royal King said:
Democrats.

Actually, by Eisenhower, or Eisenhauer before he Anglicized his name.

Wrong, AGAIN!

Eisenhower send in military advisers- JFK and LBJ sent in combat troops.

Stop trying to revise history. AGAIN!

Stephen Hogan said:
True, but it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to defend them, as you explicitly stated.

“The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Ruling that burning a koran is legal, according to the Constitution, would be defending our freedoms. Hopefully, they do.

Being a true patriot, I’m sure Royal King will commend Glenn Beck. His 8/28 rally raised five million dollars for the Wounded Warriors Foundation. Being all for the troops, the King surely wouldn’t let partisan politics keep him from giving Beck an ‘atta boy’.

newzmaker said:
“The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Ruling that burning a koran is legal, according to the Constitution, would be defending our freedoms. Hopefully, they do.

I would agree with you, but it is not Breyer’s job to ‘defend freedoms’. His job is to interpret the Constitution.

you have to outlaw the burning of the Koran or people will die.IMPLEMENTATION BY INIMIDATION.

Stephen Hogan said:
I would agree with you, but it is not Breyer’s job to ‘defend freedoms’. His job is to interpret the Constitution.

My final word on this topic: when the courts interpret and READ the Constitution, they will have NO choice, except to defend freedom of speech, which includes burning a koran.

newzmaker said:
My final word on this topic: when the courts interpret and READ the Constitution, they will have NO choice, except to defend freedom of speech, which includes burning a koran.

Well, you are not a Justice, are you? So I hardly think that you are in the position to tell the Justices what they must do. As I said, I agree with you, but it is not the job of the Supreme Court to ‘defend freedoms’, as you originally asserted.

Talk about dense….

What is the crowded theater? This is the kind of ridiculous over-analyzing that leads to the moronic decisions handed down by the Supreme Court! This is were their law-educations gets in the way of common sense. The Court will take the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” phrase, and expand it to mean whatever fictitious legal scenario they want it to fit. This is not the within the purview of the Court, nor should it ever be! The Supreme Court, and all other court judges are merely referees and nothing more.

newzmaker said:
Talk about dense….

Pot, meet kettle. I’m a civil person, but that does not mean I have to tolerate that.

Seriously, I said that I agree with you. I just pointed out that your original statement was wrong. And it is still wrong. It might behoove you to return to our conversation and read it rather than just thinking about what you say next.

I stand by original statement, which is not wrong. In effect, when the courts decide that burning a koran is included as freedom of speech, this is a defense of the freedoms defined in the 1st Amendment.

Actually, if the courts decide to compare burning a koran, to shouting fire, they would actually be defending islam, which is illegal, under the Constitution.

newzmaker said:
this is a defense of the freedoms defined in the 1st Amendment.

Yes, but his job is not to defend freedoms.

newzmaker said:
This judge should be defending US freedoms

This is your original assertion. It is wrong. The judge ‘should’ not be doing anything of the sort. He should interpret the Constitution. If he interprets that burning the Koran is protected under the 1st amendment, then that’s great. If he does not, I disagree but that’s his interpretation.

newzmaker said:
Actually, if the courts decide to compare burning a koran, to shouting fire, they would actually be defending islam, which is illegal, under the Constitution.

Yes, it would be.

notsofast said:
Wrong, AGAIN! Eisenhower send in military advisers- JFK and LBJ sent in combat troops. Stop trying to revise history. AGAIN!

On another thread I spoke of Republicans going orgasmic over arcane policy issues. Looks like I was right, again.

RichS says:

Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die.

could you give us some literature to back that up
I searched cordoba jews die and found in the Jewish Encyclopedia
In Cordova, as in Mohammedan countries generally, the Jews enjoyed the same privileges and were subject to the same duties as the other inhabitants. They fought in the Moorish army and held government positions.

When Newt states For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

I guess even though he recently became a Catholic he has not had a chance to read the Catholic encyclopedia

Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04359b.htm

Narcissism describes the character trait of self love, based on self-image or ego. In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a severe personality dysfunction or personality disorder, most characteristically Narcissistic personality disorder, also referred to as NPD.

newzmaker says:
September 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm newzmaker(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Actually, if the courts decide to compare burning a koran, to shouting fire, they would actually be defending islam, which is illegal, under the Constitution.

(Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court’s opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or “fighting words,” that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury” and which “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”

The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

example – a general stating it could harm our troops

writer says:

Being a true patriot, I’m sure Royal King will commend Glenn Beck. His 8/28 rally raised five million dollars for the Wounded Warriors Foundation. Being all for the troops, the King surely wouldn’t let partisan politics keep him from giving Beck an ‘atta boy’.

I agree – a WONDERFUL THING
thanks GLEN BECK

Atta boy, bug.

The Real Royal King said:
Of course, he wasn’t. He was dealing with a concept, not a case. A case has attendant facts.

He was over stepping his bounds. Justices are not supposed to speculate on limiting the freedoms of United States Citizens. I referred to this as a case because it certainly is a potential case. A legislator is allowed to speculate but Justices are not there to lecture their fellow citizens. As to relying on your interpretation of anything, I have no respect for you so why would I rely on you for anything?

bugspot1 said:
RichS says:

Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die.

could you give us some literature to back that up

In 1011, there was a massacre of Jews in Cordoba: which was followed by other slaughters in other parts of Al Andalus, notably in Granada in 1066. The famous Jewish scholar, Maimonides originally lived in Cordoba in the early 12th century, until the Almohades dynasty took the city, and threatened to kill any Jews who did not leave or convert to Islam. Maimonides’ family relocated to the more tolerant university city of Fes, in Morocco.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264958/posts

You can do your own search if you want more.

moriarty70 said:
That’s more than the Muslims at Acre got. They never got the choice when killed by the Crusaders.

Then maybe the Muslims shouldn’t have conquered the Christian Kingdom that contained Acre. You did know that the Crusaders went there because the Moslems conquered the Christian Kingdoms that had been there.

Oh, and by the way, when Mohammed was in exile and raised his army, how many innocents did he kill in conquering the Arabian Peninsular in the name of the Religion of Peace?

RichS says:

Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die.

could you give us some literature to back that up

In 1011, there was a massacre of Jews in Cordoba: which was followed by other slaughters in other parts of Al Andalus, notably in Granada in 1066. The famous Jewish scholar, Maimonides originally lived in Cordoba in the early 12th century, until the Almohades dynasty took the city, and threatened to kill any Jews who did not leave or convert to Islam. Maimonides’ family relocated to the more tolerant university city of Fes, in Morocco.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264958/posts

You can do your own search if you want more.

You link me to a post from some unknown guy who calls himself Tailgunner Joe

did you read my links to the catholic encyclopedia or the Jewish encyclopedia?

If the catholics say Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe and you want to listen to Tailgunner Joe, I guess thats up to you.

Let’s assume Tailgunner Joe is correct. With both sets of information in hand, why is Tailgunner Joe a reason not to believe this is a good venture. If we go back to the same period of time we have the Crusades. If we go back to the bible we have

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

or
You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

As I understand it, the case law on this is pretty well established and Justice Breyer’s “thoughts” were poorly made.

He seems to be suggesting that the free speech rights of Americans can be limited or suppressed if people overseas engage in violence or disrupt the public safety because of that speech. That somehow the “age of the internet” has made the “crowded theater” a global one and that if speech here in the US leads to disorder in a “crowded theater” in Afghanistan that that speech can be banned.

No, that’s not acceptable. We simply cannot permit our speech rights here to be circumscribed because of the actions of others overseas (generally speaking: obviously national security laws prevents me from giving the names of our agents working inside the Taliban or AQ).

Let’s use another example: If I wish to burn an American flag here (protected speech) and put it on Youtube but a group of, let’s say, Italians threaten violence in Rome if I do so, the US government simply cannot suppress my actions because of that threat or violence.

Breyer needs to walk this one back pretty quickly.

MichelleF said:
WOW! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy having him making big constitutional decisions for me.

Yeah, toot, about as warm and fuzzy as Roberts makes me. You know Roberts, the activist judge, along with Scalia, another activist judge. You know what activist judges are, don’t ya, since you guys have been throwing those words around since Terri Schaivo. An activist judge is someone with whom you disagree!

@RichS
I havent given up, I am still looking for more on your behalf but found this from The website of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue

http://irdialogue.org/articles/what%E2%80%99s-in-a-name-cordoba%E2%80%99s-history-and-modern-consequence-by-reid-smith/

Political pundits – most of whom should know better – are eager to spitball hysterical allusions about Park51.

Córdoba brought the three Abrahamic faiths together in relative peace and harmony. Muslims recognized Jews and Christians as “people of the Book” and they were generally left to follow their own faith and customs provided they paid a small tax. Sadly, when Córdoba was recaptured by Christian forces during the Reconquista in 1236, it quickly became a hub of activity against Spain’s remaining Muslim population. Ultimately, however, many of the city’s advancements were inherited by Europe and laid the groundwork for both the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution.

either way, with information from both religious encyclopedias, and Tailgunner Joe,
And I will admit that Muslims did some horrible things back when most religions used wars, why can’t we listen to something the religious encyclopedias have to say?

Stephen Hogan said:
That’s not his job. His job is to interpret the Constitution and law, not protect freedoms.

You have 10 thumbs down at this point, Stephen. Apparently there are 10 folks who never studied American history in high school.

Alamo,
Please feel free to point to something specific Justice Roberts has said and I might have a response.

alamo2 says:

Stephen Hogan said:
That’s not his job. His job is to interpret the Constitution and law, not protect freedoms.

You have 10 thumbs down at this point, Stephen. Apparently there are 10 folks who never studied American history in high school.

Those are from liberals who are confused about what a constitution is

MichelleF said:
alamo2 says: Stephen Hogan said:That’s not his job. His job is to interpret the Constitution and law, not protect freedoms. You have 10 thumbs down at this point, Stephen. Apparently there are 10 folks who never studied American history in high school. Those are from liberals who are confused about what a constitution is

Ah, right, sweetums. You should know that only RWers give Stephen thumbs down. And only RWers give you thumbs up! And Democrates know that Constitution is capitalized. :)

Alamo,
Since know you the constitution so well, can you point to where it gives the gov’t the right to demand citizens buy healthcare?

MichelleF said:
Alamo,Since know you the constitution so well, can you point to where it gives the gov’t the right to demand citizens buy healthcare?

More to the point, can you tell me where the capitalized Constitution denies the Government the right to do so?

FEAR GOD AND YOU NEED NOT BE AFRAID OF ANYONE ELSE….

GOVERNMENT IS A TRUST, AND THE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE THE TRUSTEES; AND BOTH THE TRUST AND THE TRUSTEES ARE CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT “OF THE PEOPLE !!”

FOR EVERY MINUTE YOU ARE ANGRY YOU LOSE SIXTY SECONDS OF HAPPINESS….

HATING PEOPLE IS LIKE BURNING DOWN YOUR OWN HOUSE TO GET RID OF A RAT…

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WRONG WITH HISTORY..

HUMANITARIANISM CONSISTS IN NEVER SACRIFICING A HUMAN BEING TO A PURPOSE….

MichelleF said:
This opinion by Breyer exposes him as an intellectual lightweight whose every judgment should be questioned now.

Perhaps that’s why Royal Race Baiter/Religious Bigot can relate to him.

You’re actually calling anyone, let alone someone on the Supreme Court an intellectual lightweight? I don’t really think you have to practice at stupid; it seems to come naturally.

The Real Royal King said:
The Real Royal King says:
September 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm The Real Royal King(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

notsofast said:
Wrong, AGAIN! Eisenhower send in military advisers- JFK and LBJ sent in combat troops. Stop trying to revise history. AGAIN!

On another thread I spoke of Republicans going orgasmic over arcane policy issues. Looks like I was right, again.

No, I just felt you libs had gotten away with to many lies about American history and I wanted everyone to know that you lied again.

Ted, don’t make me do another poll. The last one was quite embarrassing, but not at all surprising, for you!

MichelleF said:
Ted, don’t make me do another poll. The last one was quite embarrassing, but not at all surprising, for you!

Okay, I won’t make you do another poll. But still, you calling anyone, I mean anyone and intellectual lightweight is surreal. I hope you understand that and will stop embarrassing yourself.

bugspot1 said:
RichS says: Oh, and off topic, the Caliphate of Cordoba, that wonderful place that the Ground Zero Mosque is named after, gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam or die. could you give us some literature to back that upI searched cordoba jews die and found in the Jewish EncyclopediaIn Cordova, as in Mohammedan countries generally, the Jews enjoyed the same privileges and were subject to the same duties as the other inhabitants. They fought in the Moorish army and held government positions. When Newt states For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. I guess even though he recently became a Catholic he has not had a chance to read the Catholic encyclopedia Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04359b.htm

Here is another, you have the date, can’t you find these yourself? Is this a game you play, Jeez?

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/ben-dror-yemini-the-jewish-nakba-expulsi/

It encompassed a series of violence events against the Jews. In 1011 in Cordoba, Spain, under Muslim rule, there were pogroms in which, according to various estimates, from hundreds to thousands were murdered. In 1066 in Granada, Yosef Hanagid was executed, along with between 4,000 and 6,000 other Jews. One of the worst periods of all began in 1148, when the Almohad dynasty came to power (al Muwahhidūn), and ruled Spain and North Africa during the 12th and 13th centuries.

bugspot1 said:
You link me to a post from some unknown guy who calls himself Tailgunner Joe

did you read my links to the catholic encyclopedia or the Jewish encyclopedia?

If the catholics say Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe and you want to listen to Tailgunner Joe, I guess thats up to you.

That’s hilarious in a sad sorta way. Honest folks. look at your source and make some realistic assessment of it’s credibility. Even good sources are not absolute, but “Tailgunner Joe?” what reason would anybody have for believing that without some credible corroborating evidence. .

SteveMG said:
As I understand it, the case law on this is pretty well established and Justice Breyer’s “thoughts” were poorly made.

He seems to be suggesting that the free speech rights of Americans can be limited or suppressed if people overseas engage in violence or disrupt the public safety because of that speech. That somehow the “age of the internet” has made the “crowded theater” a global one and that if speech here in the US leads to disorder in a “crowded theater” in Afghanistan that that speech can be banned.

No, that’s not acceptable. We simply cannot permit our speech rights here to be circumscribed because of the actions of others overseas (generally speaking: obviously national security laws prevents me from giving the names of our agents working inside the Taliban or AQ).

Let’s use another example: If I wish to burn an American flag here (protected speech) and put it on Youtube but a group of, let’s say, Italians threaten violence in Rome if I do so, the US government simply cannot suppress my actions because of that threat or violence.

Breyer needs to walk this one back pretty quickly.

It is an interesting question. It occurred to me that since we’ve hand to rethink a lot of laws specifically because of the different nature of the war on terrorism that perhaps it is time to at least consider the options on this

I strongly recommend ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C 0 m ______ to you where I just found my interracial boyfriend! You know it is a great place to meet black men and beautiful women. What’s kind of relationship do you want? ;)

RichS said:
Here is another, you have the date, can’t you find these yourself? Is this a game you play, Jeez?

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/ben-dror-yemini-the-jewish-nakba-expulsi/

It encompassed a series of violence events against the Jews. In 1011 in Cordoba, Spain, under Muslim rule, there were pogroms in which, according to various estimates, from hundreds to thousands were murdered. In 1066 in Granada, Yosef Hanagid was executed, along with between 4,000 and 6,000 other Jews. One of the worst periods of all began in 1148, when the Almohad dynasty came to power (al Muwahhidūn), and ruled Spain and North Africa during the 12th and 13th centuries.

Even if it’s true it’s kinda irrelevant to our present day issues. It’s ancient history.

Breyer should be tried and sentenced by a private court for comments clearly meant to incite violence.

It is an interesting question. It occurred to me that since we’ve hand to rethink a lot of laws specifically because of the different nature of the war on terrorism that perhaps it is time to at least consider the options on this

Well, national security laws may make us re-visit these matters. After all, people were asking President Obama to issue an Executive Order forbidding the release of Abu Ghraib photos because of concerns of violence. But the need for “public safety” or worries about threats of violence simply can’t be used to allow the government to ban private speech. Not as the law is currently constituted (as I understand it).

Unless there’s an imminent threat of violence at the scene location of the Koran burning here, the government cannot suppress that burning. That’s always been the law.

But I cannot see how violence abroad can lead to suppressing that burning. After all, the idea behind public safety is the safety of American citizens and not foreign ones.

The Real Royal King said:
Penguin60 said:
quite offensive if you ask me.

I didn’t ask.

He wasn’t asking you, Robert!

Because of Bryers comments, I would love to see a liberty minded individual take the Quran and burn it, thus challenging this Supreme Court “judge.” I would make it a political statement, not out of religion, but out of Free Expression.

It really amazes me how many anti-liberty bigots there are out there.

The Real Royal King said:
Sat in the sun, counted the number of Frenchwomen who don’t shave their underarms go by.

That sounds just like something you would do.

alamo2 said:
More to the point, can you tell me where the capitalized Constitution denies the Government the right to do so?

The US Constitution is a document that spells out what the federal government can do, everything else is left o the states and the people. Of course this principle has been trampled on via many politicians.

The Real Royal King said:
notsofast said:
Whose side were you on? It wasn’t the American side.

I was on the troops’ side, not Nixon’s/Kissinger’s/Westmoreland’s.

Which troops, NVA?

More Liberty said:
The US Constitution is a document that spells out what the federal government can do, everything else is left o the states and the people. Of course this principle has been trampled on via many politicians.

Terribly simplistic. Many of the provisions of the Constitution deal with what the federales, and the staties (through the 14th Amendment) can NOT do.

Patrick Henry said:
Which troops, NVA?

Big words from a coward whose idea of service is carrying luggage to a guest’s room.

SteveMG said:
It is an interesting question. It occurred to me that since we’ve hand to rethink a lot of laws specifically because of the different nature of the war on terrorism that perhaps it is time to at least consider the options on this

Well, national security laws may make us re-visit these matters. After all, people were asking President Obama to issue an Executive Order forbidding the release of Abu Ghraib photos because of concerns of violence. But the need for “public safety” or worries about threats of violence simply can’t be used to allow the government to ban private speech. Not as the law is currently constituted (as I understand it).

Unless there’s an imminent threat of violence at the scene location of the Koran burning here, the government cannot suppress that burning. That’s always been the law.

But I cannot see how violence abroad can lead to suppressing that burning. After all, the idea behind public safety is the safety of American citizens and not foreign ones.

I think you’re right.We should not apologize or shrink from our freedoms. I think people have to learn to not be so thin skinned and not give to much credence to the non violent actions of others. At some point our Islamic brothers and sisters have to figure out that people vary. Some are nice and some aren’t and that’s humanity.
Maybe we can get the old adage, “Sticks and Stones can Break my Bones but Words can Never Hurt Me” translated into Arabic and Farsi and widely distributed in the Middle East.
That said I also think it’s good to remind people that acts of hate like burning the Qu’ran do not serve America in any positive way. I would even consider getting a Bible written in Arabic and slipping that in, just to see the look on their face when they find out.
Dude, you just burned the Bible!

alamo2 said:
More to the point, can you tell me where the capitalized Constitution denies the Government the right to do so?

10th Amendment, and probably other provisions if the SC were to interpret them half as broadly as they interpreted the 14th amendment et al as giving us the right to an abortion.

Justice Breyer Likens Koran Burning To Shouting “Fire” In A Crowded Theater

Of course burning the American flag or the Torah or Christian Bible would be OK, right Judge? How about building a Mosque. In an area where over 3,000 people were murdered by followers of the Koran. Thats not going to stir up any trouble, right? Judge….

CosmosDan said:
RichS

If tailgunner joe said the sun rises in the east would you deny that too? Jeez, you have the date, look for your own sources. This is a fact I have know since high school.

CosmosDan said:
Even if it’s true it’s kinda irrelevant to our present day issues. It’s ancient history.

Then why is the Ground Zero Mosque named after a city in which these atrocities happened? That was the point, can’t you keep track of these things?

gordonbloyershow said:
Breyer thinks we should consider foreign court decisions when making decisions on the Supreme Court.The guy is a kook.

Yes. This is what liberals do when they can’t get their way with the US Constitution. Obviously, his view, which is shared by other liberals, is illegal and against the core values of our system.

This is why in liberal law schools (Harvard included), they are trying to stop teaching Constitutional Law!

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Breyer misses the reality of the situation. A great cartoon:
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/21079

RichS said:
Then why is the Ground Zero Mosque named after a city in which these atrocities happened? That was the point, can’t you keep track of these things?

But it’s not named for any alledged atrocities. Cordoba was also known as a city where Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived and thrived together. Rauf has stated that’s why he chose the name. Unless someone is a mind reader I’ll take his word on it. Speculating on other motives is a waste of time, and iuf they’re willing to change it to Park 51, it is no longer relevant.

btw, When you make a statement that you present as fact, it’s kinda up to you to provide credible sources, but it isn’t relevant one way or the other. It’s no big deal. I thought it was funny that you chose that source. Anybody can write anything on the web so quoting some random cite isn’t credible for anyone.

bros, this bro just answered the other bro’s question. calm down, bros. what do you want him to do? say he can’t speculate? chill out, bros.

Johnny Musselman said:
bros, this bro just answered the other bro’s question. calm down, bros. what do you want him to do? say he can’t speculate? chill out, bros.

Wooh THanks,……Dude…..that’s…um…….cool.

CosmosDan said:
Wooh THanks,……Dude…..that’s…um…….cool.

You spelled whoa or wow wrong. I can’t figure out which.