Hmmm. It seems that writing about the First Amendment and Christian-majority tolerance of religious minorities, as I wrote in yesterday’s post, really elicits quite a response from people.
But regarding the Supreme Court’s decision that I mentioned in yesterday’s post, there was a study [.pdf] just recently by USC Law and Political Science Prof. Lee Epstein and colleagues which showed that U.S. Supreme Court Justices tend to approve of the First Amendment when it fits their own ideological views.
Here is a chart showing some of the study’s findings, as shown by the NYT:
It appears as though the more conservative-leaning Justices were more biased against the more liberal speech or speaker, while the more liberal-leaning Justices seem to be less biased against conservative speech or speakers, albeit still biased. (However, the study mentioned above might itself be biased. Who knows?)
But, according to UC, Irvine Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, the current Roberts Court has shown more of a bias against speech which goes against the State. From the NYT:
The court has, he said, protected hateful speech at military funerals, allowed the sale of violent video games to minors and struck down campaign finance laws. But it ruled against a government whistle-blower, a student expressing a pro-drug message, a prisoner and a human-rights activist.
Justice Scalia was in the majority every time.
Given how extremely and sickeningly authoritarian and fascist Amerika has become, I am not at all surprised. And it’s also no surprise that this “Supreme” Court has recently refused to even hear the case by Chris Hedges et al. in opposition to the NDAA’s provision of indefinite detention of Americans, which the President can use to have the military arrest and detain anyone he or government and military bureaucrats want to have arrested and detained, for any reason, without charges, or even suspicion.10:36 am on May 7, 2014 Email Scott Lazarowitz