Turning the tables on Supreme Court

The lone dissenter in this 8-1 verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court was Justice Samuel Alito.

Noting the lawsuit filed – and initially won by Albert Snyder of Maryland, who sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. – Justice Alito said that Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace."

Instead, Alito said: "The protesters brutally attacked Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Despite this, and in one of the worst of all of its decisions, the majority of the high court ruled against this Maryland father of a U.S. Marine killed in action overseas, whose funeral I saw disrupted even from 1,000 feet away from the church in which this Marine's funeral was conducted.

While I strongly disagree with the current campaign of militant homosexuals to promote acceptance of their orientation, and with their creation of the word "homophobia," I would like to share with you my imagination of what just might possibly happen later this year:

Since May Day 2011 took place on Sunday, when the U.S. Supreme Court was not in session, the militant homosexual organization No Tolerance of Homophobia, or NTH, planned its day in court for Monday, May 2.

On that day, they were able to obtain four seats in the Supreme Court's courtroom, when the nine justices gathered to hear final arguments in a number of cases.

Advertisement - story continues below

Three male members of NTH and one female member were seated in four different areas of the spectator's gallery.

During a brief pause, when one attorney yielded to another, the first NTH member, a large man with a thunderous voice, stood up and called out: "WHY SHOULD THIS COURTROOM BE MORE SACROSANCT THAN MILITARY FUNERALS?"

As two of the Supreme Court's police officers rushed to this row and had to weave their way around several seated spectators before they could seize him, he kept bellowing the same question as the justices sat, amazed and somewhat shaken at the disruption.

The guards were in the process of dragging out this protester when, from the second row, there came another loudly protesting vocal dissent: "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SUPREME COURT JUSTICES! AS FOR YOU, JUSTICES, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!"

Advertisement - story continues below

This attracted the attention and action of the only two additional Supreme Court police officers on hand who raced down the aisle and seized the second protester.

As this second demonstrator was being dragged out – while he kept shouting – yet a third protester cried out from a different location (and with no available police to seize him) the following: "YOUR MAJORITY RULING CITED CONNICK v. MYERS: 'SPEECH ON PUBLIC ISSUES OCCUPIES THE HIGHEST RUNG ON THE HIERARCHY OF FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES AND IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL PROTECTION.' SO WHY ARE YOUR POLICE SEIZING US WHEN WE ARE EXERCISING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THIS BUILDING IS ENTITLED TO EXCLUDE CRITICS OF ITS DECISION TO ALLOW CRITICS TO DISRUPT FUNERALS OF THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY?"

As some of the justices began rising to leave, their came the shrill voice of a female protester: "YOU WHO HAVE ALLOWED DISTURBERS OF HEROES' FUNERALS OUGHT TO KNOW THAT YOUR POLICE OUTSIDE HAVE NOT ALLOWED ANY PROTESTERS ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS OR EVEN IN THAT HUGE AREA IN FRONT OF THE COURT. HOW IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD A COURTHOUSE – AND ALL AROUND IT – BE BARRED FROM PROTESTERS, BUT NOT CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP SERVICES?"