Court Rules Against ACLU and Protestors in Military Funeral Lawsuit

Last week, a U.S. District Court in Missouri denied a request by ACLU lawyers to prevent the state from enforcing rules that limit protests near funeral services.  The ACLU filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of protesters who were picketing and disrupting military funerals.

As you may remember, in November, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief arguing, among other things, that funeral attendees have a right to mourn those who died defending our country without being disrupted by protesters.

The court order, issued by federal Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. adopts an argument made by Judicial Watch that Missouri’s “funeral protection law” is well-grounded in Eighth Circuit judicial precedent and is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.  On another point, Judge Gaitan specifically cites Judicial Watch’s brief in his ruling, writing:  “…amicus Judicial Watch notes that Missouri also has an interest in protecting funeral attendees’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.”

So what spurred this lawsuit?

After protesters began picketing outside the August 2005 military funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri, state lawmakers decided to take action by passing a “funeral protection law.”  The law does not ban picketing altogether, and does not delineate what kind of “speech” it seeks to regulate.  As Judicial Watch argued in its brief, it is a “narrowly tailored law” that merely regulates the time and place of protests without specifying the type of behavior that is disruptive and disrespectful.  Nonetheless, one of the protesters found a willing legal partner in the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf.

Fortunately, Judge Gaitan ruled that the ACLU’s client did not demonstrate a “likelihood of success on the merits” of her arguments and denied her request for preliminary injunction.

Unlike the ACLU, most Americans believe that mourners should be able to engage in quiet and reflective prayer at funerals.  As the court noted, “…picketing soldiers’ funerals and belittling the sacrifices made by soldiers are intolerable actions…”  I couldn’t agree more.

Just Which 'Evil Men' Was Hillary Clinton Talking About?

What did Hillary Clinton say the other day that had her audience laughing hysterically?  This may be one of those "had to be there" moments to get the joke, but here goes:

Hillary was engaging in a town hall style discussion when a man from the audience asked her what in her background qualified her to be commander-in-chief, given that the world is full of "evil" leaders, many of whom "happen to be men."

Hillary replied, "The question really is, we face a lot of dangers in the world, and in the gentlemen's words, we face a lot of 'evil men.'  People like Osama bin Laden comes to mind.  And what in my background equips me to deal" - she then waited a second, allowing a wry smile to emerge before finishing - "with evil and bad men?"  The audience laughed for half-a-minute before Clinton could continue.

Obviously, they found something amusing about the reference.  But which "evil and bad" men was Hillary referring to?  Some thought Bill Clinton.  To me, her "bad men" reference echoed the "vast right wing conspiracy" argument she fabricated in the 1990's.  Nice that she seems to jokingly compare those who sought to hold the Clinton gang accountable to terrorists.  I'm not laughing.

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption.  Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information.