The Priest went to the FBI to tell them his story and who the eyewitness is. They wouldn't talk to him, so he went to the press. What else is he supposed to do?
I posted more, Next time you're eating dinner with your wife peacefully, I'll be sure to create a crowd and get in your face... No big deal, right? Perhaps "Violence" was a poor choice of words for the first video... Still unacceptable... Not violence... My 1st Amendment right...
It's not violence, but it's also not your First Amendment right. I guess this is the point where I use the eyeroll emoji, eh?
And that this sort of behavior isn't even acceptable... For someone who claims to be "fair and open-minded" you seem to love representing your opponents arguments in the worst possible faith... At least I try to do both... I give the best-case scenario and the worst-case... I often assume you're right across the board because I think that's a compelling argument.... You resort to, "I'm a lawyer, therefore I'm right, you're stupid."
It sounds like we are maybe playing semantic games with "extreme". I guess the way I would look at it if you were to define extreme in a SCOTUS sense is someone that consistently ignores factors that judges usually incorporate into their decision making process in favor of some narrow jurisprudential approach. So if you are a textualist and always vote no if it isn't in the text, then that might be extreme. Or if you are outcome focused and consistently overlook the plain meaning of the law when it has a bad outcome, then maybe that as well. But yeah, you could argue that it's not extreme to be true to an ideological approach to the law. So is Scalia extreme because he believes that the law should be interpreted based on the original meaning to those that created it? He has a consistent and well thought out approach. Is Sotomayor extreme because she consistently leans toward an outcome based decision? I don't know and you would probably get different opinions if you asked different people. Ben made a good point about consistent judicial philosophy, as exemplified by Scalia and Thomas most notably. I think one other thing to consider is that the public impression of the outcome does not always line up with the legal issues that were argued. For example a justice could hear two cases, one where someone was arrested for photographing a federal building from a public area and the second was Citizens United. They could consistently vote in favor of first amendment rights in both cases, but to the public at large the decision in the photography case was "good" and the CU decision was "bad". So yeah, as you said you could have inconsistent rulings from an ideological perspective that might be coherent from a jurisprudence perspective (ex. Scalia voting for flag burning).
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. —C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.
I believe the Priest was trying to honor his privacy and leave it to the FBI. But I have not seen a name.
It's still not violence. That was your claim. You posted one video in support. Don't blame me for that.
Can we cut the left a little slack today? It's been one of the worst days of their lives, so there's gonna be some violence. It's what they do. C'mon, guys. Have a heart.
I don't agree with people disrupting people at dinner, but you're equating peaceful verbal protests with physical attacks. Ain't the same thing. Let's not forget the POTUS says he'll pay for the legal defense of people who commit physical attacks. He has incited violence. And he even calls them "fine people" after events like Charlottesville. And certainly if you want to link Antifa to the left, the "fine people" of the "alt right" who invaded Charlottesville, must represent the right... correct?
Did you see Antifa? Did you see Maxine Waters? Did you consider those things to be acceptable? You love talking about Trump inciting violence... you rarely seem to talk about the left being violent... I didn't vote for Trump... and that was one of the reasons... Is there anything that Democrats can do to lose your vote? You showed a couple videos of like two men getting violent at Trump rallies as though that was indicative of Trump's base... You already consider the alt-right as part of the right or Trump's base... Don't complain when I do the same with Antifa and cite Maxine Waters...
