Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Animal Cruelty Videos
Created on: April 27th, 2010
Domain grabbed in anticipation of summer confirmation battle.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.13) | 100 | 11 | 17 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3,899 |
Inbound links:
Love the biased media headline that doesn't read "Supreme Court reafirms free speech rights" Because under the law struck down, it wasn't just dog fighting videos that were covered. Hunting, and even instructional slaughterhouse videos would have been banned. How many more animals would have suffered because someone would fail to get the proper training? You also Nuke only Roberts, when the vote was 8-1.
The case was dealing with a law banning those videos. So I think the headline is fair. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the grey lady. I agree that the law was too broad and needed to be struck down.
I however no longer believe in the validity of the supreme court as impartial arbitrators of the Constitution due to its recent activist rulings that defy constitutional intent theory and legal precedent. Are rule of law is fading and will only continue to due to the public being distracted by the empty rhetoric of partisans.
I however no longer believe in the validity of the supreme court as impartial arbitrators of the Constitution due to its recent activist rulings that defy constitutional intent theory and legal precedent. Are rule of law is fading and will only continue to due to the public being distracted by the empty rhetoric of partisans.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link