Burning Justice

Samuel Chase is a unique figure in American history: the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached.

Twice the number of Presidents have been impeached. Like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, Chase was not removed from office, saved by a Senate vote. Chase, like Johnson, was a victim of political circumstance, challenging a recently passed political law. Clinton was impeached for perjury, but that, too, was seen as political by a majority of the American people.

It may be time to add Clinton's second Supreme Court appointee to the list of the impeached.

Stephen Breyer, in an interview on Good Morning America, was asked about the recent Quran burning controversy. His response was almost as offensive to constitutional scholars as a Quran burning would be to devout Muslims:

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” …

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases - and not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

In other words, if your words or actions will cause other people to go crazy and lead to a great loss of life, you do not have the constitutional protection to go through with your action.

See, if you burn an American flag, or a Bible, that's no big deal to Breyer; you can still do that, because there will be no "trampling", so to speak. Allah forbid, though, that you burn a Quran.

There are two major offenses Breyer commits here: one constitutional, and one against the very group he attempts to stand beside.

First, numerous courts have affirmed over the years the freedom of opinion, specifically that the federal government cannot stifle opinion. Calling out "fire" in a crowded theater was ruled unconstitutional because it revolved around a statement of fact: Either there's a fire, in which case people should evacuate, or there's not. Burning the Quran is a religious or political statement of opinion - government intrusion into this case will inevitably insinuate that one religion is truer than the others, and that violates the separation of church and state that is a bedrock of this country.

Based on Breyer's reasoning, burning a Bible is not on the same level as burning a Quran, due to the response incurred by that burning. Do we then reclassify free speech to not include cartoon drawings of Mohammad, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and any other publication that offends Muslims.

What does say about Muslims? Is Breyer not insinuating that Muslims are unable to control themselves in a decent and dignified manner? Is Breyer not implicitly stating that Muslims are not on the same level as Americans, or that they are perhaps uncivilized?

It seems to me that Breyer's comments may be almost as insulting to Muslims as they are to constitutional scholars. Yet that is for Muslims to sort out.

For Breyer's complete warping of the constitution and trampling of the First Amendment, impeachment should become an option for him.

Let the Chase begin.

UPDATE: Breyer has successfully walked back, at least for now, any impeachment discussion due to a far more thoughtful exchange on Larry King's show:

CNN’s Larry King: There’s no doubt that Pastor Jones, little church in Florida, had the right, he has the right to burn the Quran, doesn’t he?

Breyer: Yeah, I said it depends on what analogy you use, but the most one analogous case is that there was — you have the right to burn an American flag as a symbol....

King: ... Does [the flagburning decision] make us a great country?

Breyer: It helps. It helps.... [W]hat we’re saying is we protect expression that we hate. And protecting expression that we hate is not the only good thing in the world, but it is one good thing in the world. And when you have a country of 300 million different people who think different things, it is helpful. It is helpful to tell everyone, you can think what you want.

King: Hard for other people to comprehend why Nazis can march —

Breyer: There they are. You know, it’s so often I hear people say — and particularly this is a college students, sir. Well, that’s just so terrible what he’s saying. I say, oh, you think that free speech is only for people who don’t say things that are terrible....

Good for Breyer. Call off the dogs.