Father of dead marine ordered to pay legal fees of crazy protesters

I'd refuse to pay just to find out if there is a judge in this country who'd send me to jail over it. What BS

So what you're saying is: go to Westboro Baptist Church and hang out in the bushes until the "opportune moment?"

That's all kinds of fucked up.

Christ, if only Omar were still here.

There has to be more to this.

Free speech, ElCapitan. The kind you believe Ann Coulter is entitled to.

Sucks, doesn't it?

I wish there was a proper hell for Phelps. I really can't imagine a broiling pit of pain and suffering that's good enough for him and his revolting "congregation".

Aren't there laws where free speech isn't protected when directed toward an individual in a potentially hurtful manner? The signs aren't specifically directed toward the family, but the intent certainly is.

In other news: being a cunt is easier and less costly in this world than not being one. Now, back to the ongoing TEA Party protest--which has major sponsorship from a conglomerate--outside of the criminally underfunded rural health care clinic with a largely volunteer staff.

What a crock of shit. What's to stop me from going to one of their protests with a sign that reads, "FRED PHELPS SUCKS GOD'S VEINY DICK DAILY"? That's pretty fucking hyperbolic.

My point with you in the Coulter Does Canada (Ann, The Man, A plan, Canada!) thread was that, in almost all the instances that come up about this type of thing, you can afford the cool and objective pragmatism (I'll call it what you feel it is, centrist. As opposed to the kneejerk label, fencesitter. Or the more passionate, instigator.) because none of this really effects you or yours in any direct manner. Now, of course, I could be completely wrong and you are laboring under an existance marked by racial hostility from these quarters at nearly every turn. I'm inclined to doubt that as you took your two daughters to a Palin rally as example of the way 'the politcal system in our country works'. If these extremers were a source of discomfort for you, it would have hardly made sense.

I don't know about dishonor, but as far as Coulter and the endless semantic gymnastics required to discuss her rationally, I had no interest in the topic any further. I still don't feel there is anything useful to say concerning her or her trip. It was not an attempt to snub you. Now, I can be theatrical, and maybe even a little rough - but one thing I am not, is a snubber.

I like you and, contrary to how it may seem, I envy your cool with some of these topics. For a good deal of these discussions, I come with my hackles already half up. I'm more inclined to boil over from a cursory passionate take than calmly reason it all out first and see where the crux of concern is. (A little trick I learned from Abe Lincoln is to write up my post, stare at it, save it to wordpad and wait then rewrite or modify it. 99% of the time I produce a more subdued, less inciteful(?) and thoughtful post.)


I don't think they should be jailed, either. But the idea that the father is being held responsible for their court costs is beyond the pale. I'm astonished at the way this has unfolded. It's almost as if the court (that overturned the decision) has never heard of these guys.

This would have been the perfect opportunity to make that case for restraining measures that you mention. That's the first step. Then these guys overstep that, which you absolutely know they would do, and the next level of effort is put in place. It's that first step that's crucial. Of course, it sounds for all the world like the 'slippery slope' that concerns the civil rights minded. And it should. Every effort to curb hate, violence, bigotry and rights violations smacks of it. It's an unavoidable byproduct of the act of progressing.

We're in a jam with these folks. It would be fabulous to simply turn the tables and hector, picket and moon these assholes at their private matters, but they'd welcome the attention. They've even got us there! Trusting to the proven dysfuntional supreme court doesn't make me warm inside, either.

I have to repeat my sentiment from earlier. Sucks, doesn't it.

God bless Free Speech.

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Seriously, I hope it goes to the Supreme Court.

No, you don't.

Doesn't your fucked up justice system allows cases to go the the highest circles?

Martin, you're forgetting that the Supreme Court is packed with 4 people who agree with these scumbags on substantive issues and that it always sides with the bully in arguments.

I'd just like to point out that that tendency is exactly why then-Senator Obama voted against confirming Roberts. It would be nice to see a President Obama with the balls to call out the lobbyists and conservatives on both sides of the aisle like that.

I'm sorry. I made an habit of skipping over most of your posts.

It's a reflex, honest.

Wouldn't internet forums/talkbacks implode if this were the case?

To give some perspective, as a lawyer I think that this is the only reasonable way to determine who has to carry the legal fees. Over here it seems to be the same principle (from what I can gather at first glance), meaning that the defeated party has to carry the fees inasmuch they "lost" in relation to what was the value of the claim. Granted it is easier to determine in civil law than public or constitutional law, but that is pretty much the only "fair" solution. At least in the formally way to cause and effect of the case - Not the case itself as in this matter.

To derail a bit: Do you have a capping of sorts on the legal fees the defeated party has to pay, as to the "reasonable fees" or something? Because otherwise it seems that your legal system, or more precisely the costs of high end lawyers, can shift the balance of this system towards failure.

Oh I saw the link and everything (and some of your links ARE interesting), but since most of the shit you write is retarded, I have to gloss over the majority of it. I may lose a some of the intelligent rambling you do, but it's better that way.

Every time Phelps and his crew of merry fucktards come up in a news cycle a little something dies inside me. I've got my fingers crossed that it's my sense of smell this time, and not the last fucking shred of my hope for humanity.

Just a question; is there anything this guy can do now after this retarded judgement?

Quick question:

Anyone know if forced upon sodomy or male rape mean hell and damnation to the "victim" as well in Phelps book?
Just asking.

Hey, Cap, in between Palin rallies and fence-sitting, watch the documentary about Fred Phelps that came out a few years back.

There are very few people on this earth that I wish dead. Fred Phelps is one of them.

Also, wasn't there a bill passed to prevent Phelps and others from protesting military funerals? Am I wrong about that, or just stupid today?

Is that the Louis Throux one?

Okay, I did read the thread, which is why I edited my post. Second, I'm with soylent -- your cool in these situations can be incredibly frustrating, especially for those of us who have a more passionate belief in gay rights and other issues that you bring up. Much of the time, it seems like you can't make up your mind.

That being said, I agree with you about the free speech issue but that still doesn't change the fact Fred Phelps needs to die.

Also, this is the law I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect...len_Heroes_Act

I'm in a terrible mood and picking on you unnecessarily. Ignore everything I said.

In the United States, clients are--as a general rule--required to pay their own freight. In other words, you are generally responsible for the attorney fees generated in enforcing your rights. The general exceptions to this are as follows: (1) the opposing party acts in such bad faith or so vexatiously that they should be sanctioned; (2) the parties have previously agreed that the losing party should bear the costs of the suit; or (3) there is statutory authority for awarding the winning party its attorney fees.

I'd have to look more closely at the Phelps case to explain what happened there.

this is my opinion about the subject.

i really do believe that these religious assholes do have the right to protest in the fashion that they are doing.

however. i also believe that the family of the dead soldiers have every right to go and beat the shit out of those people while their protesting the funeral. no questions asked. whats fair is fair. these protestors cant have their cake and eat it too.

its funny cause i listen to all the retarded assholes like glen beck, hannity, and O'Reilly talk about missing the "good ole' days" i always rolled my eyes. but every once in a while they're right. we need a little of the good ole days so that these people can have some sense beat into them and all of society can look at each other, nod and say, "well, they had it coming."

I checked the case's status on Westlaw. Apparently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 8, 2010. So, it's going up.

I'm about to read the opinion, too. I can't fathom why attorney's fees are justified here, based on the story as presented in the media.

Oddly, and maybe my skills aren't up to par for this kind of research, but I can't find the opinion on Lexis or Pacer.

Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Nothing good can come of this. Nothing. Fuck. (Why can't people just refuse to appeal to that level until at least a few of the crazier fuckers die? Why? It's like the public is begging these cunts to write bad case law.)

Looks Bill O'Reilly has agreed to pay the entire bill.

Just came in to post the same thing. This leaves me sooooo conflicted.
On one hand, what a great thing to do. On the other....O'Reilly.

Nothing unites people like a common enemy

Funny. With this Tea Bagger movement accelerating, and with Glenn Beck being it's Lonesome Rhodes, I said this: "Remember back in the day when we had cool, calm, considerate talking heads like Bill O'Reilly? I miss those days."

Scary part?

I MEANT IT.