Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case  
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3275 posts, RR: 45
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/

This is absolutely disgusting. These people wouldn't know Christianity if it kicked them in the nuts.

Is it a Constitutional right? Probably.

Is it classless, tasteless, and completely abhorrent. Without a doubt.

I just get so mad about things like this. It's one thing to do it on the steps of the Capitol, or something like that (not that I agree with it). But to single out individuals' funerals, and protest? These people are going to be in for a rude surprise when they get to the Pearly Gates.

  

Cheers,
Cameron

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

I find Phelps and his church repugnant, but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.

User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.



  
The first amendment is to protect speech we do not like ...



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

I also value the First Amendment.

Which is why I support the Hells Angles getting in these a$$holes faces.

Maybe there can be some very noisy crowds outside their little church every time they have a service - let both sides exercise their free speech at the same time then and see how they like it.

In general there will always be problems with religious nuts, be they terrorists or uncontrolled holy rollers who believe they are doing God's Work.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

The First Amendment protects the right to be repugnant, whether it's Fred Phelps and his sordid brethren or anyone else. This case reminds me of the suit between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt - a ruling that forever got it in people's heads that you can't forbid poor taste. What Phelps and his gang are doing goes well beyond poor taste so suffice to say if a serviceperson's family member were to do something, extreme, shall we say, I will certainly not be surprised nor saddened. Such are the risks inherent to unpopular speech.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3275 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I wish the First Amendment excepted speech like this. Logistically, I understand it would be impossible to implement, since it would introduce an element of subjectivity, and that would be bad.

I just don't feel like this is really the Freedom of Speech that our Forefathers had in mind. This is hate speech, plain and simple.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):
This is hate speech, plain and simple.


True , but some of the things we all say on here could be classified as hate speech as well. We don't need government telling us what we can and can not say ... period.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3275 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 6):
True , but some of the things we all say on here could be classified as hate speech as well. We don't need government telling us what we can and can not say ... period.

Indeed, but to then act on it requires another step. I don't, fundamentally, disagree with you, though.

Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2923 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):
I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I wish the First Amendment excepted speech like this.

How would that look - a list of things you can't say enshrined on paper?? Impossible.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 7):
Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.

Possibly, but that's largely a jurisdictional issue I would think. IIRC some of Westboro's "protests" have been asked to stay x-number of feet away from a funeral in progress.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 7):
Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.



It is certainly a fine line ... and it works both ways. I myself have thought of some ideas of what I would like to do to this Phelps crowd .. and it is not in keeping with good citizenry if you know what I mean.

This is going to be a battle indeed ... for now it is this "christian" church who do not IMO make overt threats. But soon it will be Muslim radicals standing up screaming death to America on some street corner that will grab our attention. This may be even a larger test for our first amendment ...especially if they end up carrying out a attack. It is going to happen ... and how we handle that is going to be interesting.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3275 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 8):
How would that look - a list of things you can't say enshrined on paper?? Impossible.

Exactly my point. I know it's not actually feasible, I just hate it when people can "get away" with doing something that all but about 100 in this country of 310,000,000 people agree is "wrong," or at least completely lacking decency.

Plenty of subjectivity, and I know it's not realistic, nor inherently desired due to its subjectivity, it just makes me so angry that it happens in the first place.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3275 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2909 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
I myself have thought of some ideas of what I would like to do to this Phelps crowd .. and it is not in keeping with good citizenry if you know what I mean.

  

I know exactly what you mean.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2890 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):

I just don't feel like this is really the Freedom of Speech that our Forefathers had in mind. This is hate speech, plain and simple.

There is no law nor is there a constitutional basis for the restriction of hate speech.

In Germany, there is. But their laws and constitution are different from ours.

As a gay Jew, I don't think I need to expressly state my views on Mr. Phelps and his ilk. Besides, there are not words (vulgar or otherwise) to describe my feelings toward these people.

But I will not stand to see their right to freedom of speech eroded. I feel very sorry for the family of this soldier and I am sorry that they were targets, but unless they committed libel or slander (and they didn't even mention the soldier's name, I don't think) then the SC should side with Phelps.

Neither you nor I can know what the Founding Fathers "had in mind." That died with them. We, their successors, must make that decision for ourselves.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):


This is going to be a battle indeed ... for now it is this "christian" church who do not IMO make overt threats. But soon it will be Muslim radicals standing up screaming death to America on some street corner that will grab our attention. This may be even a larger test for our first amendment ...especially if they end up carrying out a attack. It is going to happen ... and how we handle that is going to be interesting.

It is true, and so I am anxious to see how this case turns out. Like it or not, religious extremists and hatemongers have a right to say what they want.


User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2620 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2879 times:

I thought one of the pillars of the civil case against the Phelpsoids was that they were committing "intentional infliction of emotional distress." I also can't see a single shred of an argument that that's not what they were doing. There was an a.net thread about this when the federal appellate court threw out the $5 million verdict against WBC. I noted my astonishment that said court didn't agree that inflictus distressicus intentionalis had obtained, and that frankly I suspected something else was going on behind the scenes; something that might in fact qualify as abuse of judicial discretion.

I state the most obvious thing I'm likely ever to state in my life, but I somehow just have to say it: I hope Phelps loses this one.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2856 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
Neither you nor I can know what the Founding Fathers "had in mind."



Well there was plenty of heated protesting back in the day's of the founders. They called each other all kinds of names and used the "press" to print some pretty vile accusations against political opponents. I believe that the founders had a pretty good idea of hatred...and the depths people could sink too.

I believe the first amendments primary function is to support speech against tyranny ... I believe that the founders feared the growth and power of the central government so much that they gave us citizens the right to object openly and loudly. And they did well ...



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/

This is absolutely disgusting. These people wouldn't know Christianity if it kicked them in the nuts.

Is it a Constitutional right? Probably.

Is it classless, tasteless, and completely abhorrent. Without a doubt.

I just get so mad about things like this. It's one thing to do it on the steps of the Capitol, or something like that (not that I agree with it). But to single out individuals' funerals, and protest? These people are going to be in for a rude surprise when they get to the Pearly Gates.

I find them disgusting as well. We had them try to come up to Winnipeg in 2008 to picket the funeral of Tim MacLean, who was decapitated on a Greyhound bus west of Winnipeg. AFAIK not gay, so the motivation escapes me on this one. Some were stopped at the Emerson/Pembina ND border crossing, but some went west and got across. However, no actual picketing happened. Still, given the trauma the MacLean family went through, this was a truly despicable thing to do.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 14):

I believe the first amendments primary function is to support speech against tyranny ... I believe that the founders feared the growth and power of the central government so much that they gave us citizens the right to object openly and loudly. And they did well ...

Tyranny is what they had in mind, but I think that they also knew that giving the government the power to suppress ANY kind of speech would lead to a slippery slope of any sort of unpopular speech being labeled as "unsuitable" (except for clearly criminal speech, such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, or slander/libel).


User currently offlineiairallie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Freedom of speech is precious. I loathe the Phelpes and what they've done but any attempt to stop the funeral protests needs to be legitimate & constitutionally compatible . I certainly hope that the counsel opposing them will find a way to do that but I'm not super confident it can be done. I understand they are taking the angle that a funeral is a private venue and you only have a right to freedom of speech in public venues. It will be really interesting to see if this holds up to scrutiney.

[Edited 2010-10-06 15:38:36]

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
ANY kind of speech would lead to a slippery slope of any sort of unpopular speech being labeled as "unsuitable" (except for clearly criminal speech, such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, or slander/libel).

Doc, I can see what you're getting at but I also think that this sort of speech is analagous to shouting fire in a theater and is slanderous/libelous. You're taking dead soldiers and slandering them by saying that they died because "God hates fags". How do they know that these soldiers died and are going to hell specifically because "God hates fags"? They can't prove that outright, the Bible that I reads says that judgement will be made by God only, and hence the speech becomes slanderous and their written diatribes on the subject libelous. Not only that, their speech and actions are beyond just offensive and I would argue injurious to the families and loved ones of the deceased. They will remember that WBC showed up at their dead son/daughter/loved ones funeral for the rest of their lives and it will of course weigh on their minds. It would be one thing if there were mixed reviews on the subject from the families of the dead, however I'll eat my hat if a SINGLE ONE of those families would say that they didn't want WBC members at their funeral. WBC can continue on with their drivel, but at a minimum the government should put a solid foot down on where and when they can do those sorts of things. Leave those families and loved ones alone, they're already suffering enough.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7939 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
There is no law nor is there a constitutional basis for the restriction of hate speech.

In Germany, there is. But their laws and constitution are different from ours.

True, but I'm almost certain Phelps could not be brought to justice in Germany as well. I wrote "almost" because I do not know in detail what he is saying besides his "Thank God for dead soldiers" ramblings.
I know he's anti-gay and thinks they will "burn in hell", but this would not be illegal as long as he and his family don't urge others to kill or harm gay people.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4895 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

There is a fine line between free speech and verbal assault. Given the emotional distress and damage caused, this is a case of the latter.

So you have a right to express yourself, and I have the right to punch you in the nose.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Damn, I'm so torn here. Like the others, I find Phelps and gang repugnant. But, their right to protest is a fundamental right, so long as the proper permits, blah, blah, blah are obtained for the locality.

But, we do limit free speech in areas. As I recall, the State has to show a compelling interest in limiting speech. Is the prevention of emotional harm on the family of a slain soldier (the target of the protest) a sufficiently compelling reason to limit Phelps's (or anyone else's) speech?

I don't think it meets the test.

But, now, as I understand it, this lawsuit isn't so much about curbing speech, but whether a victim can bring a private suit against the protesters for the alleged harm caused by the speech.

This of course, presents another slippery slope.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

They are disgusting people. They have to be making money off of what they do, otherwise, they would not be able to do it. None of them, AFAIK, work for anyone else. While there are some attorneys among them, I highly doubt they are "hireable."

The problem I have is with the other side, us. Every time we devote media attention or our own attention to these fools, they get rich, mainly off of the taxpayers dime and from donors who privately fund their satanic escapades. This is one problem that will go away if we completely ignore it, but as long as we put our time and energy into them, they will continue to thrive.

I'm a big believer in freedom of speech too. Which is why I say that I doubt these people would be missed, should some nut who doesn't agree with them decides to get irritated.

UAl


User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3052 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 2):
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.

The first amendment is to protect speech we do not like ...

No matter how ugly this display was, I agree the Ist must be protected,like it or not.

Quoting comorin (Reply 20):
There is a fine line between free speech and verbal assault.

Only if the demonstrators were obstructing or within a matter of feet ,that it might be construed as an assault.
However.a civil case might weight in as distress emotional pain,as you pointed out,and might win.

Quoting comorin (Reply 20):


So you have a right to express yourself, and I have the right to punch you in the nose.


(lol) Don't even consider it.

[Edited 2010-10-06 16:53:19]


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5554 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 18):
They can't prove that outright, the Bible that I reads says that judgement will be made by God only, and hence the speech becomes slanderous and their written diatribes on the subject libelous.

Irrelevant. Freedom of religion will come into play there. They don't have to prove anything.

Quoting iairallie (Reply 17):
I understand they are taking the angle that a funeral is a private venue and you only have a right to freedom of speech in public venues.

AFAIK, there have been no "protests" on actual cemetery grounds (private property). They stand on the sidewalk next to or nearest the ceremony and picket there.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
25 Dreadnought : These guys are not being prevented from exercising their first amendment rights. They are free to say their piece in 99.9% of all situations. But jus
26 DocLightning : Isn't it illegal to use anti-semitic language there? You'd know better than I would. No, because you aren't saying anything that can proven or dispro
27 NorthstarBoy : As much is i disagree with what Phelps is doing, you can't place the right to privacy above freedom of speech....ever. IMO, any kind of ruling which s
28 Post contains images NoUFO : Not really as I never used anti-semitic language. As far as I know, there are three main differences between the right to free speech in Germany vs.
29 LTBEWR : Basically, the US Supreme Court has to consider if a lower court's money judgment against Phelps group on the grounds of intentional distress is or is
30 Mudboy : The one time that I would inflict physical harm, regardless of the consequences, on a person expressing their freedom of speech would be if an America
31 Quokka : Freedom of Speech is a precious thing: without it we would be slaves. But freedom without responsibility is another form of tyranny. Why should anyone
32 Post contains links DocLightning : And who are you to tell them they aren't Christians? If you go to www.godhatesfags.com (which seems to be down right now) he gives a set of Bible ver
33 Quokka : My point exactly, Doc. It seems that sects generally are very choosy about which bits of the scriptures they emphasize and ignore the bits that don't
34 Mudboy : That is an excellent way to look at it Doc, thanks for opening my eyes, as they were blinded by anger!
35 Mir : You can't yell "fire" in a theater because it poses a danger to the other occupants. Any law we have restricting freedom of speech is based around se
36 cpd : I saw these protestors on the news tonight. And I honestly started to feel sick, and pretty angry as well. A hell of a lot of people (many of them not
37 NIKV69 : I agree. Even though I am agreeing way too much with the mad doctor I value the right to say what you want. Including the people who start picketing
38 oly720man : I think he is of the mindset that the more people protest against him the stronger his beliefs become. A lot of hating, abhorring, despising and loat
39 gosimeon : I find this whole thing interesting. I mean, do you guys think that the right of a few people to shout hateful stuff at parents as they bury their son
40 MD11Engineer : Don´t forget that Phelps and his daughter are experienced lawyers. They watch for any small infraction of laws in the response of their pickets and
41 NoUFO : I think the father has everyone's sympathy here, that's not the point. But it remains questionable if somerone is right just because he is more likab
42 AGM100 : IMO ...no. I see and hear many things in this society that make my conscious tremble. But I understand it , good or bad that is our system . I also b
43 DocLightning : Oh, if I ever met the man it would take every ounce of self-control to not cheerfully pummel him until he was a thin puddle of green mung. But I'd kn
44 stealthz : Firstly a disclaimer, I,as you may notice from the flag by name am an Australian so do not have any real vested interests here apart from my outrage a
45 DocLightning : Nope. He doesn't use "name and rank" I don't think. And even if he does, he's not saying anything that can proven to be untrue. If "name and rank" di
46 AGM100 : This is the theory of collective punishment on a society ,mostly a Old Testament idea ...I have seen it first hand. Rev. Wright and the liberation do
47 Post contains images DocLightning : There's a lot of "agreeing" going in here. NIKV, now you, Dreaddy... Jeez, guys, what have we come to? Actually, Phelps is a Calvinist. He believes t
48 Dreadnought : The right to privacy was instilled in our legal system via Roe v Wade and other rulings. Being able to bury a loved one without deliberate disturbanc
49 NIKV69 : I am lot closer to the middle line than you ya know. LOL. In this instance it's a no brainer. Can't silence people. I love free speech as long as it
50 Flighty : The US is fairly extreme about free speech. The speech itself is fine. However, you can't follow a citizen around at any and all times, harassing them
51 DocLightning : Yes, but that's just it. Phelps is being very careful to not "disturb" the burial. He did so on public ground OUTSIDE the service. But they were peac
52 WesternA318 : Where's Gary Seven when you need him? (All you Trekkies ought ot know this reference).
53 NoUFO : That's the same sort of thinking militant anti-abortion folks shared when they were killing doctors. A society can only remain peaceful if killings f
54 Flighty : Then they are in the clear. This is a very civilized realization. During the Bush Admin I realized that my notion of justice was not civilized at all
55 DocLightning : I can wish for whatever I want. What matters is that I don't actually do it. And so long as I don't, neither you nor anyone else have the right to te
56 Aesma : Without banning what Phelps and all say, couldn't it be possible to ban what they're doing, ie picketing funerals, including inside the cemetery ? I d
57 LTBEWR : Apparently these fools showed up in NY City today and ended up being confronted by a number of people who didn't like their anti-gay and other offensi
58 MarSciGuy : About 6 years ago I was dating a girl who lived in Las Vegas and had gone to the Las Vegas Academy high school - from what I remember it was a perfor
59 DocLightning : They could have ignored them...
60 offloaded : That's what I was thinking. Whilst free speech is protected, harrassment isn't. Someone needs to find a legal way to close these fools down. (e.g. br
61 DeltaMD90 : I used to loathe these people but believed that they had the right to say this under the 1st Amendment. But really, I don't care if their 1st Amendmen
62 NorthstarBoy : After more thought, this could be an interesting case if for no other reason than to determine if the fourth amendment, when it states that a person s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fred Phelps Says 'Thank God For Katrina' posted Wed Aug 31 2005 20:13:24 by Airbuzz
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71
US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 12:45:12 by D L X
MI Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case! posted Tue Nov 6 2007 13:53:31 by Dtwclipper
Democrat Candidates For Supreme Court Justice posted Tue Jul 12 2005 22:22:50 by SFOMEX
Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case posted Mon Jun 14 2004 16:50:25 by B757300
US Supreme Court To Decide Mandatory ID Case posted Tue Mar 23 2004 01:14:34 by Jhooper
Thank God, Finals Are Over For The Semester posted Fri Dec 12 2003 09:38:57 by L-188
Supreme Court's Got Some Work Cut Out For Them posted Thu Oct 16 2003 07:55:52 by Aaron747
Obama To Nominate Kagan To Supreme Court. posted Sun May 9 2010 19:22:29 by fxramper
MI Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case! posted Tue Nov 6 2007 13:53:31 by Dtwclipper
Democrat Candidates For Supreme Court Justice posted Tue Jul 12 2005 22:22:50 by SFOMEX
Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case posted Mon Jun 14 2004 16:50:25 by B757300
US Supreme Court To Decide Mandatory ID Case posted Tue Mar 23 2004 01:14:34 by Jhooper
Thank God, Finals Are Over For The Semester posted Fri Dec 12 2003 09:38:57 by L-188
Supreme Court's Got Some Work Cut Out For Them posted Thu Oct 16 2003 07:55:52 by Aaron747