in his life begin? and usually the supreme court is very protective of the first amendment of the rights of free speech. however, what you said at the last part of your talking points is right. that right for free speech is not absolute. there are limits that can be placed on it specifically with respect to the time and the place and the manner of the speech. the westboro baptist church has a good argument because i know the father said that they were 30 feet from the entrance. the facts in the brief say they were 1,000 feet away and that they were across the street and the testimony is undisputed that the father didn t even see them when he actually attended the funeral. he only saw them later on the tv protests. which really hurts his case as a legal matter. forget your motions. as a legal matter, that does not help him. the supreme court is going to have to decide whether the church crossed the boundary in this particular case. there is no question that these lunatics at this church
bill: they don t have to. it stands that they didn t care. have you been too tough on the fourth circuit. i have to stand up for these judges. i m not defending. bill: oh that s just bull. legal case under anyone s analysis. bill: high profile case they should have explained. they let it hang in the air well we don t know whether it was intentional infliction of emotional distress. they didn t need to. the other guy concurred and said i agree with the judgment. this is how i would have the first two judges didn t need to address that. bill: not a matter of need. it s a matter of what s right. they didn t do what s right. you don t understand how opinions work. bill: i know. i m not smart enough. then they piled on by saying you have got to pay 16,000 when they didn t have to do that. they piled on and they didn t have to do it. you are wrong on that, too. listen. bill: no, i m not wrong. you are wrong, bill. it was an option. it was discretionary. bill:
laws saying you can t get anywhere near the actual funeral. bill: look, whether it was 30 feet or, you know, 300 feet, that does make a difference, i guess. but what s in play here are a number of things. let s take the appeals court in virginia first. all right. number one, i don t know whether you know this, but the appeals court, these three pinheaded judges put their pictures up there again. they found that the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge, that the family made in this case. and won on at the trial court. bill: was not valid. no, they didn t. if you read the thing they were not sympathetic to that charge. let me explain to you where you are wrong. it s a three-judge panel. two judges did not speak to that two judges threw it out on first amendment grounds. one judge concurred with the overall result says mr. insider loses but said i would pull it out for the following reasons and that was the only judge to say the actual merits of the claim aren t
what happens in appeals all the time as a matter of costs winning party gets costs made. bill: discretionary. costs copying cost and so on. the winners here at the west where row baptist church asked for costs done in every appeal and granted in virtually every appeal. bill: they can set it aside if they want. to other side given opportunity to object if there is a reason. mr. snyder did that he filed his brief late. deadlines matter. they don t do the heart string thing at the appellate court level. he filed it late and the appellate court rejected it now, if he wins at the supreme court. bill: rejected it. if he wins at the supreme court he doesn t have to pay a dime. bill: he doesn t have to pay it anyway i will pay it? which i love. that s admirable of you. bill: we are still friends even though we go back and forth. this is where you are desperately wrong. this is as wrong. you are talking from your heart and not from your head. bill: no. no. i m talking ab
it stands that they didn t care. have you been too tough on the fourth circuit. i have to stand up for these judges. i m not defending. bill: oh that s just bull. legal case under anyone s analysis. bill: high profile case they should have explained. they let it hang in the air well we don t know whether it was intentional infliction of emotional distress. they didn t need to. the other guy concurred and said i agree with the judgment. this is how i would have the first two judges didn t need to address that. bill: not a matter of need. it s a matter of what s right. they didn t do what s right. you don t understand how opinions work. bill: i know. i m not smart enough. then they piled on by saying you have got to pay 16,000 when they didn t have to do that. they piled on and they didn t have to do it. you are wrong on that, too. listen. bill: no, i m not wrong. you are wrong, bill. it was an option. it was discretionary. bill: what does that mean ms. megy