Oh for the love of gravy… I don’t get you, Moto. Is there any reason why you couldn’t have reamed me back in the other Pit thread?
How did you manage to interpret the gist of my comment as intending to suggest that non-lawyers should stay out of legal discussions? That’s even more tangential than your weird attempt to shed light on the Constitutionality of funeral protest bans by invoking a scenario where antiabortionists mug Hillary Clinton.
I’d already guessed that you had no idea about *Grayner v. City of Rockford * at the beginning of the thread. As it happens, I didn’t either, so you taught me something there. I think it’s admirable that you took the time to research your position, and I am impressed by your ability to track down a case that seems vaguely comparable to the topic at hand. I myself tried to track down some information on Grayner, but my own research skills are for crap, so all I know about it is what you quoted in the other thread.
My point in mentioning that it took you four pages to come up with this case was not meant to denigrate your legal expertise-- I’m not really in a position to do so, as I have none myself. Rather, I was pointing out that, at the beginning of the thread, when you announced that you were in favor of funeral protest restrictions and hoped to see them expanded… at that point, you had no idea whether there was any reasonable justification for such restrictions or not.
At first you didn’t even bother to offer a positive argument for why such restrictions are needed, other than vague murmurs about how rights are always subject to restriction. Then you started flinging random claims around-- that the funeralgoers were having their First Amendment rights infringed upon, that the protesters were actually intent on violence-- seemingly in an attempt to see if any of this stuff would stick. Now, wonder of wonders, after four pages of this, you’ve managed to dredge up a case that may actually apply in some sense. Congratulations.
But that doesn’t change the very clear impression you’ve given: you don’t actually care why funeral protests are restricted, so long as they are. If they can be restricted on First Amendment grounds, that’s fine; if not, then perhaps the protesters can be arrested for inciting violence. Whatever works.
However, you also know that your real reason for supporting such restrictions is a transparently unconstitutional one-- because funeral protests offend your sense of morality. And so you must cast about for some other justification, any justification, that looks as though it might hold water.
That may well be a perfectly sensible and valid legal philosophy, in an “Al Capone Jailed for Tax Evasion” sort of way; I wouldn’t know. But that’s what I meant when I accused you of “cherrypicking.”
