Court Hears Free-Speech Case on Dogfight Videos

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wanted to know if Congress could ban a “Human Sacrifice Channel” on cable television. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about videos of cockfighting.

“What about hunting with a bow and arrow out of season?” Justice John Paul Stevens asked.

“What if I am an aficionado of bullfights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wondered, “and I think, contrary to the animal cruelty people, they ennoble both beast and man?”

And Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked about “stuffing geese for pâté de foie gras.”

The rapid-fire inquiries came in an exceptionally lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday in the most important free speech case this term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/us/07scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Leave it to Tony to defend bullfights.

[joeybee12]

2. They enoble both man and beast? Scalia is such a worthless

POS.

[paulsby]

4. it's a hypothetical

see my other post. he is not saying it is HIS opinion, any more than the justice who asked the question about bow hunting out of season is advocating same.

read lithwick's article at slate.


this is ROUTINE scotus par for the course. they pick apart both sides by using hypotheticals.

recall how houseman acted in the paper chase? it's called the socratic method.

[paulsby]

3. he wasn't. you're wrong

that's a bogus statement. he was posing a hypothetical, just like stevens et al did. lithwick has a great article at slate detailing some of the hypotheticals the justices brought up during this case

fwiw, that's how review works in the scotus. both. sides present their cases, and the justices routinely pick apart both sides, with such questions, which are HYPOTHETICALS.

the flag burning case was especially hilarious. i recall kunstler getting caught when he claimed that the object that was defiled was irrelevant to the issue. so, as long as one owned the property, and it wasn't a vandalism, that it should be protected (fwiw, i agree with kunstler that flag burning laws that prihibit that behavior are unconstitutional. so did scalia fwiw) speech.

so, one of the justices said (im quoting from memory) "so, if i spray painted the side of the washington monument, that should get the same penalty as spray paining the side of any other building?"

it was pretty funny. clearly, the justice was not advocating spraying the monoment, or that he wanted to do so.

the justices routinely propose hypotheticals, and many are contrary to their viewpoints. for all i know , scalia LOVES bullfighting, but the fact that he posed a hypothetical in regards to speech issue on that subject doesn't AT ALL say he supports it, any more than the hypothetical about bow hunting deer out of season saYS that that justice supports bow hunting deer out of season.

fwiw, i'll make a prediction. the scotus will find the law unconstitutional by at least a 7-2 vote, if not a 9-0 unanimous decision.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I wonder because he was the only one using the personal pronoun 'I'.

[paulsby]

6. that says more about his ego

than anything else. it's also in his style. i've read a lot of these reviews, and scalia usually does this with hypotheticals.

note the construction of his question "what IF i..."

that is a textbook hypothetical. by structure. what IF.

i just think it's silly to attack a justice for the legal hypotheticals they propose in these hearings.

it would be similar to criticizing a defense attorney for presenting a defense for an obviously guilty client.

a defense attorney may (ethically and legally) present a defense that he does not even believe is true (as long as he does not knowingly suborn perjury). it doesn't mean that he approves of the underlying behavior of the defendant or believes the defense

it's how legal advocacy works.