Not all Republicans agree. In a recent press release the Republican Liberty Caucus asks "If these Senators stand in opposition to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this case, then how can we trust them to respect our rights? Their oath of office requires them to defend the Constitution. They should not be asking the Supreme Court to violate anyone's freedom of speech."
The thirteen Republican Senators are: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), Bob Bennett (UT), John Barasso (WY), Sam Brownback (KS), Richard Burr (NC), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Crapo (ID), Chuck Grassley (IA), Mike Johanns (NE), George LeMieux (FL), Jim Risch (ID), Pat Roberts (KS) and David Vitter (LA). Most of these Senators have a history of voting against individual liberty and the best interests of the people again and again. Republicans in Utah have already voted Bob Bennett out of office in the primary, rejecting his big-government. anti-liberty record. These other Republicans who also seem not to understand the Constitution should take this as a warning that they will be held accountable as they come up for reelection in the next four years.
I certainly hope that the Supreme Court will not be swayed by the arguments of these political hacks and will remember that when it protects Fred Phelps' right to be offensive it also protects the right of every citizen to have and express their opinions, no matter how unpopular, without fear of interference or persecution.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
"Most of the Senators who signed the brief are Democrats..."
And most of the senators who backed the flag-burning amendment last time it came to a vote on the floor were Republicans.
Desiring to ban speech one doesn't like isn't a partisan trait. It just depends which particular form of speech is getting one's ideological goat enough to make one forget the fundamental principles of one's nation.
2 - Dave Nalle
Except that this is just one in a series of Democrat efforts to put limits on free speech, so the breakdown is worth noting, though not the focus of the article.
Dave
3 - Dr Dreadful
Also, of those Republicans on your list who were in the Senate back in '06, only two - McConnell and Bennett, voted 'Nay' on the anti-flag-burning resolution. The other seven supported it.
Yep, quite a principled bunch.
4 - handyguy
And please be sure to continue using "Democrat" as an adjective, purely to annoy. It goes a long way toward proving how nonpartisan and principled you are.
5 - handyguy
Fighting free speech with free speech is still the best idea: I'm not sure if any other mourning families have borrowed the inspired idea used against the Phelpsians at Matthew Shepard's funeral: a group of people wearing angels' wings blocked the protesters from the sightlines of mourners and TV cameras.
6 - Alan Kurtz
I certainly hope that the Supreme Court will not be swayed by the arguments of these political hacks …
Dave, is there a chance the court might be prejudiced by senators? I don't follow politics, nor am I student of government. Yet I was somehow under the impression that the Supreme Court is immune from such influence. You know, separate branch and all.
Still I realize that in practice, government doesn't always work the way our Constitution may have intended. Are there instances in recent history where senators have bent the court to their will? It seems pretty shocking.
7 - Dave Nalle
Alan, I hope you're right, but the action of these Senators implies that they at least think that their august opinion could have some influence on the court members. They are, after all, the guys who ratified their appointments.
I have some confidence that they won't get very far with this effort, based on the clear dissatisfaction of the Chief Justice with political hackery in DC. But regardless of whether they have any actual influence, they ought to be held accountable for coming out publicly with such a boneheaded position.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D. Back in 2006 I wrote two articles criticizing the GOP flag burning opponents very much in the same terms as I'm criticizing these panderers, so you're not scoring any actual points here.
Dave
9 - handyguy
The case is not directly about free speech, but about the right to sue the Phelpsians for invading privacy and causing emotional distress.
10 - Alan Kurtz
You're right, Dave. The senators ratified the justices' appointments. But aren't those lifetime jobs? I mean, can't the Supremes with impunity tell senators to go fuck themselves?
Whatever, I agree that theirs is a boneheaded position for which they must be held accountable. It's just scary they'd try to openly corrupt the court's decision-making process this way.
11 - Cindy
Dave,
What do you think about the hoopla surrounding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its solicitation of China and foreign gov't donations to run ads to effect US elections by appealing to their economic capitalist interests?
12 - handyguy
Political figures participate in amicus briefs all the time. "Corrupt" is not an accurate description.
When a case reaches the Supremes, it generally means both sides have a case strong enough to be heard. Dave and Alan are pre-deciding this with just as much one-sidedness as the opportunistic senators.
13 - handyguy
Foreign contributions are just one part of the larger, shocking story:
This election is about to be bought by gigantic anonymous donations.
All political donations should have a name attached to them. Anonymity is the enemy of democracy.
14 - Dave Nalle
I don't really have a problem with donations being credited as far as the source, so long as it's applied fairly. The currently pending legislation which exempts certain groups like unions is unacceptable.
As for the Chinese, I'd prefer they were generally not involved in US politics at all. The scandalous involvement they had in the Clinton administration opened a door which ought to be closed.
Dave
15 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, I'm not interested in scoring points. I'm just disputing your thesis that infringement of free speech is a Democrat (sorry, Handy) thing. It's not. It's a What-You're-Doing-Makes-Me-Uncomfortable-So-I'd-Like-To-Shut-You-Up thing.
16 - Dave Nalle
I'm not claiming it doesn't happen on both sides, Dr. D., but the fact that the Democrats have a particularly substantial history of pushing for limitations on free speech isn't really something you can get away from.
Dave
17 - Cindy
Dave,
I find no shortage of people willing to modify rules to suit their personal proclivities. That is why representative gov't is a sham. Democrats, Republicans, they are all alike. They all have an agenda and they each want their own way. The hell with honorableness.
18 - Nicole**
Ok I think that there needs to be someone who only knows about both sides of the politics and not one who stands on a side to be able to explain both equally. This is why I refuse to do anything in politics. Each party blames the other. This isn't a political debate. It's about human morals and deceny. What would you do if a protestor walked in on your daughter's or son's wedding ceremony and said different religions should not marry or race or sex. Same with funerals. It's a time to moarn for the loss of life - not a time to cause even more depression and anger.
From an outsider point of view...who sees nothing to come of good in politics (to me I feel they tear people apart even when we should be standing as a nation of one), is that this is a hate crime. History cannot be changed, but the future can be helped.
We need someone who is in the middle to write an article, because all that stood out to me (you are a good writer), is just demos are wrong, repubs are right. That's all I got from this. That is not the subject at hand, yet that is what stood out.
19 - Dave Nalle
Nicole, if that's all you got you're not reading very well. This article specifically singles out 13 Republicans for criticism and mentions no Democrats by name, so how can you interpret it as "demos are wrong, repubs are right"? Makes no sense at all.
20 - Chris
Nicole I totally agree with everything you wrote - yes decency is important. Freedom of speach is meant to protect the weak from the agressive - yet it seems to be doing the opposite, is that irony ?
I also hate politics - everyone I know in politics refuses to give an opinion on this, and for such normally opinionated people it seems a little yelow.
21 - Arch Conservative
Are most cemetaries public or private property?
It's my understanding of the first amendment that freedom of speech does not give one the right to enter private property to express their first amendment right.
22 - Chris
Is no one going to defend a person who died fighting for his country - what message does this send out to other troops ?
23 - Luke
I don't get why people don't just burn the church down and beat the crap out of them at any funeral they dare to turn up at, they should have been taken care of long ago, before the government ever had to get involved.
24 - Cindy
22 - Chris
Consider that people who repeat the slogan...'fighting and dying for this country' are complicit in turning young people into soldiers putting them at risk in the first place. I recommend that people stop telling others it is heroic to donate their lives to invading and killing people around the world.
- what message does this send out to other troops ?
Think before you jump on the 'fighting for this country' bandwagon?
How does killing Iraqis, for example, do anything for you?
25 - Cindy
Support Our Troops...tell them the truth.