It was the judicial week that was. From hell. From Washington to Tallahassee.
First the U.S. Supreme Court.
While we all properly applaud a ringing endorsement of free speech, this was no celebratory moment. Not with the Supremes ruling 8-1 that the (Snyder v. Phelps) Westboro Baptist Church was well within its constitutional rights to picket the funerals of U.S. soldiers with its loathsome, anti-gay, anti-military signage, the most notorious of which is the revolting: “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”
According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the Topeka, Kan. church’s targeted protest of a private funeral (that of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq) did, indeed, “address matters of public import on public property (at least 200 feet from the procession).” Moreover, the protest, which also included the odious “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for IEDs” signs, was done in a “peaceful manner,” explained Roberts.
In effect, Roberts–and seven associate justices–saw Westboro’s rhetorical bludgeoning of the father of the dead marine–a non-public figure–as yet another extension of ample First Amendment precedent that routinely protects robust, often decorum-challenged debate on public issues and free expression. No matter how distasteful. The exercise of rude, boorish, obnoxious, disgusting, insulting, even hateful speech is protected–and the concept historically ingrained. Thus, reasoned Roberts, the protesters’ speech “cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.” The familiar words and sentiments are constitutional mantra to freedom-revering Americans.
But there’s another principle at play. It is that principles always work perfectly in the abstract, where they can be insulated from common sense and, in this case, common decency as well.
Just as no Founding Father could have anticipated citizen assault weapons and monster magazines as sane Second Amendment applications, no one could have foreseen a targeted, perverted-agenda, mean-spirited assault on a private memorial service as an extension of sacrosanct, First Amendment rights. An adult club lap dance has more First Amendment credibility.
Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter in Snyder v. Phelps, put it in proper context: “It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate,” he stated. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”
And no other justice thought Alito had a sufficiently compelling point? That no mourning father should have to bear such cost for others’ “free speech”? Not the Supine Court’s finest hour.
Ideological Railroading
On the other hand, the Florida Supreme Court decision involved no such parsing of good, civil sense.
It was an exercise in judicial restraint and an understandable response to a last-minute, legal Hail Mary to try to save high-speed rail in Florida. The Florida Court–and House Speaker Dean Cannon notwithstanding, we only need the one–ruled that Gov. Rick Scott did not overstep his executive authority by rejecting the federal dollars that had been accepted last year by the Florida Legislature and then-Gov. Charlie Crist.
The result, however legally defensible, was, nonetheless, devastating. The governor was, indeed, Scott free to repeal a part of the 21st century. The part that undercut Florida’s economic future. Short and long term. Direct jobs, re-development jobs. Realization of the Orlando-Tampa megalopolis. At a time when oil was gushing well past the $100-a-barrel mark.
Scott thus stayed true to his ideology–and his base of tea partiers and the generically clueless. Those who didn’t mind that he was either a woefully incompetent or a brazenly fraudulent CEO, that he bought the governor’s race, and that he never did his promised due diligence on high-speed rail. He never let facts and un-cherry-picked data deter him. He never wavered from his ideological “boondoggle” and “on the hook” script.
Recall that a request for proposals from vendors never went out, and an updated ridership study has yet to be released. And assurances of no state liability for construction-cost overruns, shortfalls in operating revenue and potential repayment of grant funds in case of project discontinuation were proffered in writing.
Sure, Scott had the right to refuse the $2.7 billion in federal funds. He’s not legally obligated to be smart, visionary–or even fair to Florida and its future.