Stephen Breyer — part of Supreme Court librulz who hate the First Amendment and Fourth

I have written before about how Democrats' "Oh, the SCOTUS" cry every four years does little to nothing to entice me to jump back into voting for the centrist half of the duopoly. And, librul justices' stance on various portions of the First Amendment is a primary reason why I say this.

Democrats usually appeal to abortion as the big reason why voting for Jill Stein, or Cynthia McKinney, or David Cobb, or Ralph Nader, actually is the "greater evil" or whatever, just as Kuff did last week. I respond, as I have before, that abortion, and LGBTQ issues, are a narrow portion of the spectrum of civil liberties, and that beyond that portion of the spectrum, current librulz on the court have a less than spotless record by several degrees.

I had a big-ticket roundup on this issue just a year ago, when Tony Kennedy retired.

I then counter with noting someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the "notorious RBG," doesn't really like the First Amendment that much all the time, or how other Justices have been selective in their support of the Fourth Amendment and criminal rights in general, with examples in that "big ticket" link.

Well, now we have librul Stephen Breyer willing to sacrifice part of the Fourth Amendment, and tying this to that other part of my plaint? He is willing to sacrifice part of the Fourth Amendment that applies to criminals, and more specifically, to policing, so he can "back the blue."

What bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

And, it's not even the first time Breyer has voted to undercut the Fourth Amendment. He did so three years ago cuz War on Drugs, an issue where both the courts and librul preznits (remember Bill's crime bill? Hillary's "superpredators" related to that? Joe Biden halfway standing by that bill still?) have repeatedly been willing to junk protections for alleged criminals. Elena Kagan, when in the executive branch, has a history of hating the Fourth Amendment applying equally to minorities cuz War on Drugs.

Sonia Sotomayor, when still an appellate judge, didn't think minors deserved full First Amendment protections. She also wrongly thought the First Amendment meant churches were free from some labor law prescriptions.

And one or more librulz — in most cases maybe more than one — have for 25 years consistently hated third parties (like Kuff and fellow travelers like Manny).

And, all nine justices at the time — including librulz Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, along with libertarianish Kennedy, and pseudo-originalist Scalia — hated the First Amendment's freedom of assembly clause.

The real problem is librulz fetishing the Supreme Court over two issues.

Actually, that is probably No. 2.

The real problem is Democrats thinking they "own" the actual or potential votes of anybody to the left of diehard Republicans.

Dream on.

And, the more you think that, the further from reality it becomes.

==

Update, June 17: Turns out that Breyer kind o hates democracy in general at times, voting in the minority to approve Virginia House Rethuglicans' appeal of a lower court ruling on redistricting and gerrymandering. Now, I know the case was more about the issue of standing, but still.

Update, July 1: Breyer and Kagan think a cross is perfectly OK on public land as long as its connected to a war. Part of it with Breyer, per this analysis, is that he was upholding his own previous ruling in Van Orton v Perry, and even if not upholding precedents in general, justices will uphold their own previous rulings through any and every convolution.

For the unfamiliar, Van Orton v Perry was one of the most godawful "civic religion" rulings the court has made in at least 20 years. It's the one where the court said that the state of Texas could keep the Ten Commandments on state Capitol grounds.

Any unbiased idiot could see that the Eagles chose the Ten Commandments because of all the other God vs Godless communism stuff of the Cold War, and that it was NOT promoting "religion" in the abstract, but Judeo-Christian (usual Judeo fig leaf) ideas in the concrete.

And, he says 40 years passage of time means there was no "intimidation." He ignores the idea that, rather, it meant the intimidation was strong enough nobody publicly protested.

This would be like telling post-World War I original civil rights advocates, "Well, nobody protested for 40 years ..."