Saturday, December 06, 2008
Megyn Kelly simply cannot believe how little Bill O'Reilly understands about constitutional law. Talk about your on-air fireworks. No spin there.
Now, law school is almost 25 years in my past, but my only A+ was in the course I took on the First Amendment (which fact will come as no surprise to certain readers of this blog), and I'm pretty sure that Megyn is right. Separately, and being careful not to objectify her in any way, may I further add that Megyn is both hot under the collar -- in this clip at least -- and, well, hot. Hot squared.
Actually, based on how I have seen both of them bury others, I was looking for more fireworks. What's funny is that for most people that woiuld be a pretty heated conversation, but for those two they probably had a beer afterwards and were still arguing about it (its an Irish thing.)
Does anybody bother to check what the words "establishment of religion" means in the establishment cause?
It means the Federal government has no right to create a national church, like the Church of England. It means nothing else. All other arguments are based on a false premise.
Sorry Sorge. Your position might have been correct, but too many judges for too many years have said otherwise.
That said, Megyn's argument had nothing to do with the establishment clause. She was talking about the speech clause. In speech cases, she is correct that courts look askance at content-based restrictions. Once a government agency invites in outside groups to express their opinions, it pretty much has to allow all outside groups to do so. Now, that said, it can impose reasonable time, space, and manner restrictions. It might have said, for instance, that speech on subjects that do not bear directly on the various religious and secular holidays in December will be postponed until January, etc. Megyn said as much.
Being a non-lawyer I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "justice system." Rather, our vast set of laws are nothing more than the rules by which lawyers compete with one another. Justice, if it happens at all, is just a by-product of the lawyerly competition.
"Sorry Sorge. Your position might have been correct, but too many judges for too many years have said otherwise."
You assume, of course, that judges are unbiased arbitrators in search of truth, and not interested participators with their own biases.
OK, Sorge, then let me try a different approach: Given the government that we will have in Washington for the unforseeable future, do you really want politicians restricting speech based on its content?