Supreme Soviet Justice: Burning Koran Is Unconstitutional

A member of the Supreme Soviet has issued a formal statement on the constitutionality of burning a Koran.

Anything that might cause someone to become upset and thereby harm someone else must be forbidden. This means such things as:

-burning Korans

-criticizing government

-bashing the federal reserve system

-calling for less government spending

Are all fair game to be banned as unconstitutional speech according to Supreme Soviet Justice Stephen Breyer.

ABC News reports:

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But 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?”

Even the left-wing communist Stephanopoulos assumed we had a right to burn whatever books we like. At least he believed that until he was skooled in the correct line of liberal thought by Supreme Soviet Breyer.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Is anyone not a "Left-wing Communist Liberal" to you?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Is anyone not a "Left-wing Communist Liberal" to you?

Sure, I consider GW Bush to be a left-wing fascist.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Is anyone not a "Left-wing Communist Liberal" to you?

Sure, I consider GW Bush to be a left-wing fascist.

In all seriousness though, I don't think we have any Fascists or Communists in Federal Government. We just have Corporate Cronies who use the Two Parties as nothing more than a mask.

Being Liberal/Conservative to them means absolutely nothing more than just a way to keep control over the most devout Liberals/Conservatives.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Is anyone not a "Left-wing Communist Liberal" to you?

Thats your rebuttal towards the OP? So much for one-lined answers that serve no purpose to the topic at hand being removed...

To the OP:

I would like to see the esteemed justice's logic as to why this certain book cannot be burned. While I do not condone it, just as someone who burns a flag, I do not condemn it either. As long as they do not infringe upon my life and liberty and they are destroying their own property, who cares.

It is very scary to see a Justice start picking and choosing what should be protected and what should not be protected, for really, it is not their duty. While it is his own personal opinion, as a sitting judge he does have a responsibility to quell his personal opinions and remain neutral and dedicated to the Constitution.

I wonder if the 'good judge' feels the same about burning a copy of the Constitution, a flag, a bra?

Originally posted by Misoir

In all seriousness though, I don't think we have any Fascists or Communists in Federal Government. We just have Corporate Cronies who use the Two Parties as nothing more than a mask.

Being Liberal/Conservative to them means absolutely nothing more than just a way to keep control over the most devout Liberals/Conservatives.

That is what fascist are.

Corporate cronies.

Privatized profits with socialized losses, while those profits are derived from government subsidies.

That is the very definition of Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism.

The communists can be considered the intelligencia and other assorted ilk that favor pure government ownership of industry and the abolishment of private property. This includes most liberal studies academics, race baiters, union workers, and other assorted petty tyrants.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Lots of credibility here. This is the same government who has been hammering the Muslims in the "stan" nations or what they call the "near abroad", most specifically Chechnya for a decade.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Lots of credibility here. This is the same government who has been hammering the Muslims in the "stan" nations or what they call the "near abroad", most specifically Chechnya for a decade.

The important point here is the precedent Breyer is favoring.

Breyer is essentially saying that if a persons speech causes someone to become upset and violent, then the speech should be banned, not the violence that results from it.

I just had a brilliant idea! We should all go crazy when the pentagon destroys the copies of Operation Dark Heart!!! That way it will be ruled unconstitutional and they will have to release it!!!

But then again, the world runs on double standards.

Originally posted by time91

I just had a brilliant idea! We should all go crazy when the pentagon destroys the copies of Operation Dark Heart!!! That way it will be ruled unconstitutional and they will have to release it!!!

But then again, the world runs on double standards.

edit on 14-9-2010 by time91 because: (no reason given)

Government burns books to protect us from ourselves.

If we learned the truth, we might get rid of government, and that would be a tragedy.

You know the best part of this is how you just leave out parts of a story and then toss in some propaganda using words like "Supreme Soviet" and "leftwing communist". I suppose you left out the fact that what he is saying is that nothing is automatic and that courts will decide and study each case and in doing so produce debate on eact instance. This is not suprising as he is explaining how the American system works and the courts role in it. He does not say it is not and never says he thinks it is not constintunional to burn anything. Did you not understand the interview or did you just decide to ingnore it and make up your version of it?

Originally posted by MrSpad
You know the best part of this is how you just leave out parts of a story and then toss in some propaganda using words like "Supreme Soviet" and "leftwing communist". I suppose you left out the fact that what he is saying is that nothing is automatic and that courts will decide and study each case and in doing so produce debate on eact instance. This is not suprising as he is explaining how the American system works and the courts role in it. He does not say it is not and never says he thinks it is not constintunional to burn anything. Did you not understand the interview or did you just decide to ingnore it and make up your version of it?

Yeah, I left out the fact it was an interview while at the same time quoting the interview and providing a source link.

He said "he wouldn't rule it out" which is the same thing as saying "I think it should be unconstitutional"

Any idiot with even a smidgen of common sense can tell that if Breyer didn't automatically rule it out there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM with his logic.

It doesn't take weeks of academic debate or intense research to determine if burning a Koran is constitutional or not - HE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED ANY IDEA TO THE CONTRARY AUTOMATICALLY.

THIS GUY IS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FOR GODS SAKE

reply to post by mnemeth1


I get it, but what if one of this joker's opinions get me upset? Does that negate the opinion?

If so, this could well be a good thing

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I get it, but what if one of this joker's opinions get me upset? Does that negate the opinion?

If so, this could well be a good thing

hahahahahhah

We should ban the Supreme Court.

We would all be better off.

Let the state courts decide everything.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I don't know about banning it, but serious reforms need to be implemented, most important of which is the lifetime appointment.

The current situation is that due to political concerns these folks hang on to pretty much death. The job is daunting and there is absolutely no way that someone in their upper 70s, let alone their 80's can reasonably do it. Reading about the last 10 years of Thurgood Marshall's term, he did nothing but nap and watch baseball. Kids out of law school write the opinions and tell these old dudes how to vote. Ginsberg is in the same position. How can someone riddled with cancer effectively do that job?

These folks should have a minimum 10-20 year term or an end limit of 70.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I don't know about banning it, but serious reforms need to be implemented, most important of which is the lifetime appointment.

The current situation is that due to political concerns these folks hang on to pretty much death. The job is daunting and there is absolutely no way that someone in their upper 70s, let alone their 80's can reasonably do it. Reading about the last 10 years of Thurgood Marshall's term, he did nothing but nap and watch baseball. Kids out of law school write the opinions and tell these old dudes how to vote. Ginsberg is in the same position. How can someone riddled with cancer effectively do that job?

These folks should have a minimum 10-20 year term or an end limit of 70.

The colonists showed us how to conduct proper political reform.

Get rid of the politicians.

The nature of government is such that it has a monopoly on the use of force and on the interpretation of the law.

Over the long run, it will always expand its powers until the whole system comes crumbling down.

The amount of "law" we need in this country could probably fit entirely in the confines of something the size of a telephone book. - This is one hundredth of the law produced every year by just the federal government. Such a readjustment can not take place without getting rid of the existing justice system structure. No one single court should have a monopoly on the interpretation of the law.

This is why we have a federalist system with individual states and state supreme courts.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrSpad
You know the best part of this is how you just leave out parts of a story and then toss in some propaganda using words like "Supreme Soviet" and "leftwing communist". I suppose you left out the fact that what he is saying is that nothing is automatic and that courts will decide and study each case and in doing so produce debate on eact instance. This is not suprising as he is explaining how the American system works and the courts role in it. He does not say it is not and never says he thinks it is not constintunional to burn anything. Did you not understand the interview or did you just decide to ingnore it and make up your version of it?

Yeah, I left out the fact it was an interview while at the same time quoting the interview and providing a source link.

He said "he wouldn't rule it out" which is the same thing as saying "I think it should be unconstitutional"

Any idiot with even a smidgen of common sense can tell that if Breyer didn't automatically rule it out there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM with his logic.

It doesn't take weeks of academic debate or intense research to determine if burning a Koran is constitutional or not - HE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED ANY IDEA TO THE CONTRARY AUTOMATICALLY.

THIS GUY IS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FOR GODS SAKE

edit on 14-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

He does not say "he wouldn't rule it out" he does not in fact make any judgement on the matter other than it would be something that would be debated, studied and decided on by the courts just as any constitutional matters are. They are not talking about just burning a Koran but anything that would be conveyed to global audience that could lead to violence and death. This is why the comparison the yelling fire in a theater is made. With communication at global level now we will see more and more questions about what is protected and what is not. If someone does something to deliberately provoke violence from others how far they are protected is somethings always being studied by the courts. Take for example the Wesboro Batists Church who have had several cases dealing with the first amenment. The cases are studied and debated by by the court system who then render judgement, the cases are not just tossed out on the assumtion they are covered by freedom of speech. And thus as the Justice says nothing is a forgone conclusion and that "it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time." I guess in your world you would rather have a single justice so powerful he could just decide on a talk show what is and is not covered by the Constitution but, in America it does not work that way. Sorry,

Originally posted by MrSpad

He does not say "he wouldn't rule it out" he does not in fact make any judgement on the matter other than it would be something that would be debated, studied and decided on by the courts just as any constitutional matters are.

That is the problem.

If you think its perfectly normal that a supreme court justice can't give a straight answer as to the constitutionality of burning books, you're nuts.

There is no reason - ever - that book burning should be banned.

This is not something that needs to be debated.

This is not something that needs to be researched.

This is not something that requires hours of agonizing thought and public debate.

This is grade skool level constitutional law.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MrSpad

He does not say "he wouldn't rule it out" he does not in fact make any judgement on the matter other than it would be something that would be debated, studied and decided on by the courts just as any constitutional matters are.

That is the problem.

If you think its perfectly normal that a supreme court justice can't give a straight answer as to the constitutionality of burning books, you're nuts.

There is no reason - ever - that book burning should be banned.

This is not something that needs to be debated.

This is not something that needs to be researched.

This is not something that requires hours of agonizing thought and public debate.

This is grade skool level constitutional law.

Boy this is gonna take sometime. Lets again try and explain this. The question he is answering is not just about burning books. The question being asked and discussed is how far freedom of speech goes if a global communication device like the internet is used to provoke a violent reaction. If your do something like burn a book or urinate on picture in such a way that is deliberately designed to provoke a violent reaction how far does the constitution protect you? If you yell fire in a theater to cause people to panic and they get hurt you are not protected. How does that relate to what I have said above? Its not simple. As much as you would like to dumb down what they are taking about to be about burning a book it is not. And I think you know that just a much as you know your threat title is a total fabrication.

reply to post by MrSpad


ummm...

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

So what are they talking about here?

The right to dance naked in your bedroom?

Are you having some trouble reading here?

The article can't possibly be any more explicit than that.