Friday, June 27, 2014

Hypocritical Supremes: 'Do As We Say, Not As We DO!'

Photo: Irate woman who despises the Supreme Court buffer zone decision for abortion clinics.
Following close on the heels of a rational Supreme Court decision, in disallowing the ability of cops to search cell phones without warrants, we now have another decision (9-0, incredibly)  that's a head scratcher. In fact, it's a lollapalooza, bunghole decision redolent with hypocrisy that screams: "Forget the First Amendment when the security of the elites is at risk, it only applies to the hoi polloi....the little people!"

Thus, the court ruled unanimously (in McCullen vs. Coakley)  that a Massachusetts law providing for measly 35' "buffer zones" around abortion clinics was an affront to the First Amendment and hence "illegal".  What are these nine morons drinking? Have they no conception of how violence has swirled around those MA clinics and intimidated women simply attempting to get health care? Oh no! According to this enclave of selective free speech nuts, there are "other laws" to deal with those violent situations and all we are saying is the women need to submit to "counseling" as they try to approach clinic,  and it is the "counselors" 1st amendment right to do so.

The exact wording was:

"The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted interests"

Excuse me?   How do they square this with the fact that the Supreme Court itself is on public property but it does in fact have a huge buffer zone?   Indeed, one can examine the graphic shown at the top to see what a mockery and double standard we have here: since  the Supreme Court's own buffer zone encompasses the ENTIRE plaza in from of the Supreme Court Building! (Meanwhile, the tiny red line underneath shows the MA abortion clinic buffer zone)

As Chris Hayes pointed out in his segment on this judicial perfidy last night:

"I mean you can't even go up the Supreme Court's door step, not even for so-called quiet persuasion or counseling. You can't tap, tap, tap on the Justices' car door windows like protestors do to women trying to access health clinics. You can't go up to a Justice on his or her way to the office and say something like 'May I have a moment to talk to you about your majority opinion in Citizens United?'

Hayes referenced that the Supremes' rebuttal was that the women going into abortion clinics were "protected by other laws" but added that last year alone:

- Nearly 90 percent of abortion providers had patients expressing concern for their safety

- More than 80 percent of abortion providers had to call law enforcement because of safety, access or criminal activity concerns

Hayes went on to point out that in the last three decades, abortion providers have seen 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 cases of arson and 399 invasions, 1495 acts of vandalism, 2482 instances of trespassing, 4 kidnappings, and 550 instances of stalking.  He went on to say:

"Imagine how big the Supreme Court's buffer zone would be if eight federal judges were murdered in the past forty years by anti-court terrorists. If federal court buildings had been bombed forty two times, set on fire 181 times. What kind of buffer zone would those nine justices want for themselves?"

Well, it's clear it would be at least a half mile around - even affecting D.C. traffic. Or at least the size of the egregious "first amendment zones" the Bushies erected during his reign so he didn't have to hear the thunderous roar of protestors! (Why was that little bastard immune from the free speech rights of citizens?)

The abortion clinic buffer zone ruling, in other words, makes clear there' s one rule for the elites (whose precious hides must be protected at all costs - even dissing free speech of citizens) and another for the common folk - who just have to take their chances with the  nutsos and fruitcakes.

Speaking of which, who is this "McCullen" anyway who pursued this case to the SC (With the assistance of the 'Alliance Defending Freedom' rabble rousers)?  She's a  77 year old Massachusetts harpy and religious obsessive who demands that she be permitted to "quietly engage women going for abortions, to talk them out of it". Make no mistake that what she's advocating is not "quietly talking" it is forcefully pushing a religious view on vulnerable women already in a psychologically  fragile state. In this sense, it is akin to psychological torture and molestation that the CIA would use in their "renditions". Indeed, in many cases, women attempting to enter clinics are yelled at with shouts of "Don't kill that baby!" with the idiots not even aware that a fetus isn't a baby, or even a person.

Let's make clear that the nine Supremes are also hoist on their own first amendment petard. For if they will not allow "quiet counseling" directed by citizens to themselves, why have they enabled it to be pushed on vulnerable women by insane nuts? It makes a mockery of their entire argument! (Of course, some will argue that the Supremes are "special" because in the legal venue one must take care to avoid all untoward "influence". Which is total bollocks since it reduces the Court to the state of pathetic programmable robots as opposed to independent, authentic thinkers. Besides which, we note many of the Supremes, e.g. Scalia, often barge into the public domain to attempt to influence thinking of citizens. What's good for the goose ought to good for the gander!)

The bottom line is we see again there is one set of Constitutional standards that applies to the political elites and another for ordinary citizens.

The problem with double standards is that they undermine the entire Constitutional edifice and the rule of law. Make no mistake that critically thinking citizens notice these inconsistencies, or as MA attorney general Martha Coakley put it: "The donning of a black robe allows them to say do what we say and not what we do."

Ms. Coakley, to her credit, emphasized to Chris Hayes that the state has the right first and foremost to protect public safety and also the women have the right to access health care- and that the existing 35' buffer struck a good balance between speech and safety. To see it now rejected is "disheartening" given how MA women will now be subjected to screeching zombies waving placards with aborted fetuses.  Coakley will also be monitoring the situation in the wake of the law and make any changes deemed necessary - especially if one or more women are injured or worse, because a "free speechifier" gets over zealous. As she put it:

"We will do that! We are prepared to go back to the legislature. We are prepared to do whatever we need to do to make sure that women in Massachusetts have access to care.."

Good for you! Let's not allow the hypocritical Court to have the last word when they don't follow their own "free speech" edicts!

See also:

No comments: