Supreme Court

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
skeptical
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:07 pm

Supreme Court

Postby skeptical » 9 years 1 month ago (Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:12 pm)

I think that we are watching an interesting moment. If the "funeral" protesters lose their case and are shut down I would think that it won't be more than a few years or so before all revisionism is shut down as well.
There will be well funded civil cases by those who find themselves "outraged" by anyone who questions any detail of the Holocaust.
Just the fact that the Supreme Court took the case, which in my view had been well decided by the appeals court, shows that at least some of the members want to make a move against free speech.
I think that the Father of the dead US soldier probably doesn't realize that the name of his son, who died defending the constitution, will be forever more used as shorthand for the moment that the Constitution was mortally wounded.
I am amazed that during her Senate hearings that Justice Kagen, when asked to describe as her personal hero, chose not any American figure of jurisprudence but instead, a famous Israeli judge and not a single eyebrow was raised.
We seem to be on the doorstep of becoming a police state and there seems to be very little that anybody can do about it, even these gentle musings on an "anonymous" web site are clearly an open book for the folks who run the show but, like moths to a flame. we, who crave freedom, cannot help but type out our plaintive pleas for justice.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Supreme Court

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 1 month ago (Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:49 am)

Can you give some explanation, background and links, please?

We don't all live in the US of A.

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Supreme Court

Postby David Baker » 9 years 1 month ago (Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:18 pm)

Skeptical, I agree on the need to protect free speech, but I'm frankly disgusted at the behavior of this supposedly religious group. The public should be duly outraged at such a display, and roundly criticize the leadership of these protests. Young men and women who are killed while they serve their country aren't fodder for political/religious agendas. A military funeral is an honorable tribute to all members who served, and to the families who sacrificed their loved ones to protect our nation. If these people want to protest in this manner, they should be in Washington, where policies and protocols are developed and implemented which result in our troops being deployed into hostile regions.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Supreme Court

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 1 month ago (Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:53 pm)

skeptical wrote: I think that the Father of the dead US soldier probably doesn't realize that the name of his son, who died defending the constitution,


The soldier died defending the constitution? In Afghanistan? Iraq? The soldier was a member of a mercenary army, if he was 'defending' anything it was the right of the US and Israel to endlessly exploit and dominate the middle east.

You're right on the free speech issue, it is astounding to me that the Supreme Court would take up the case, and if the Zionists like Kagan prevail, CODOH will be illegal in a year.

skeptical
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: Supreme Court

Postby skeptical » 9 years 1 month ago (Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:32 pm)

As background I would offer several observations..
A.) Elena Kagen, a close associate of Harvard law professor Alan Derhsowitz (who has I believe described Bradley Smith as "the most dangerous man in America" or some such thing) was appointed to the US Supreme court a few months ago and took her seat a few days ago.
B.) The court decided to hear a free speech case which had already been decided in favor of protecting the first amendment by an appeals court.
C.) One of the other Jewish justices (Bader-Ginsburg) is quite ill so this 33% jewish court may have a short window of operation
D.) Kagen has said in her earlier writings that "free speech must be measured against societal cost"
E.) Just the fact that they decided to take up this case raises the hairs on the back of my neck, the fact that they decided to do it after adding Justice Kagen seems downright terrifying.

If you read the transcript of the case presentation you will see how the used "outrageousness" as a key component of any upcoming decision and also refered to "taking advantage of a private person's grief" as a criterion for limiting free speech.
I believe that this is no accident, I hope for the best from people but the fact that this case was chosen out of thousands to be one of the 100 or so heard this year even after it has been decided in a standard manner by the Federal Appeals court seems ominous.
The "small church" which is being sued into submission in this case was protesting near the funerals of dead US Soldiers from Iraq, making the claim that we are suffering as a nation because we are sinners... their language has been pretty despicable and they are the perfect truck on which to load a anti-revisionist weapon. If they lose this case (the church) we will see many "Holocaust survivors" filing similer cases regarding the "outrageous" revisionists "taking advantage" of these "private people's grief"......
I'm no lawyer but this civil litigation handgun seems about to be pointed at anybody who questions the Holocaust's details.
Steve

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Supreme Court

Postby David Baker » 9 years 1 month ago (Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:16 pm)

Sevenup, a soldier is assigned an enemy. He or she is trained to confront and defeat that enemy. Soldiers are dropped upon enemy soil and are expected to function as combatants once they are deployed into hostile theaters. Very (VERY!!!!!) few G.I.s enjoy combat, and even they will discern the horrors of that inhuman practice when they see, and feel, their legs being blown off, or their buddy's brains splattered on the ground. It is my fervent wish that the bellicose proponents of this PNAC protocol are made to sacrifice THEIR offspring and THEIR own lives implementing said protocol. We won't see that, Sevenup. The podunk gentry who comprise the war fighting contingent of our armed forces will be maimed, killed, psychologically damaged and, yes, thoroughly convinced that war is indeed Hell. Let us at least be allowed to solemnly express our gratitude for that soldier's brave sacrifice.

Ilikerealhistory
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Supreme Court

Postby Ilikerealhistory » 9 years 1 month ago (Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:54 pm)

skeptical wrote:I think that we are watching an interesting moment. If the "funeral" protesters lose their case and are shut down I would think that it won't be more than a few years or so before all revisionism is shut down as well.
There will be well funded civil cases by those who find themselves "outraged" by anyone who questions any detail of the Holocaust.
Just the fact that the Supreme Court took the case, which in my view had been well decided by the appeals court, shows that at least some of the members want to make a move against free speech.



I do not know whether the "funeral" case will make a difference to revisionism, or questioning anything that goes against jewish beliefs, but I am surprised that there has not been any direct laws written against questioning the holocaust(R) so far. There have been numerous covert legal (and financial) attacks against people who question the holyhoax, but nothing direct.

I don't know why those people would want to go to that soldiers funeral an heckle them. I wonder if the father would mind if someone heckled people at a burial for an SS officer.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Supreme Court

Postby Hektor » 9 years 1 month ago (Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:28 am)

There have been similar attempts to use "mourning", "outrage" or "distress" against Holocaust Revisionists. Think of the Memelstein case.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests