Alabama; d’oh! Every argument has its poster-child rebuttal. As much as free speech is precious, most find flag burning offensive. And as much as I advocate for states’ rights, Alabama’s insistence that they’re not bound by the US Supreme Court makes you wonder how much “encouragement” they should be given.
But these things have a way of sorting themselves out. The rhetoric of a state judicial campaign is unlikely to translate into direct action by a sitting judge. And if it does, the system will sort the issue on appeal or escalation to higher courts.
Almost all of our constitutional freedoms come with actions that stretch the public’s tolerance. But we must tolerate these issues on the edge to protect the fundamental freedom. We must tolerate stupid or intolerant speech to protect the principle of free speech. We must tolerate the occasional cult to protect freedom of religious expression. We must tolerate occasional neo-nazi rallies to uphold our rights to assemble peacefully.
And we’re stuck listening to distasteful rhetoric from Alabama’s judicial candidates under their right of free speech. We’re not stuck tolerating a rogue state judiciary however; we have a system for sorting that out on a case-by-case basis on specific issues.
Michael
Previous: Labels; Liberal vs Conservative? -- Next: Bush fails oath and Party |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
