We may no longer be on the cusp of civil war because the main Charlie Kirk shooting suspect was “demographically uncooperative,” but his shooting has manifested a widespread sensitivity to the language talking heads use, for fear that their words may either be “too insensitive” or “incite violence.” Take, for example, MSNBC’s decision to fire Matthew Dowd for daring to share one of the most violent and evil sentiments known to man — what goes around comes around:
In the same week, Fox and Friends anchor Brian Kilmeade casually suggested that being homeless and and refusing state shelter should warrant the death penalty:
Just for clarity’s sake — “involuntary legal injection” is just a fancy way of saying “murder.” What was the fallout for this, an actual call to violence against a class of vulnerable people facing rising homicide rates? He just said oopsie and got to keep his job:
Hey, if that’s the standard for forgiveness, can Karen Attiah get her job back after allegedly “endangering the physical safety of colleagues” for merely posting a Charlie Kirk quote?
I think the real difference is that for many, Charlie Kirk’s life is one that mattered, while the lives of people who are homeless are ones that burden. And while the right are the only ones openly advocating killing the homeless, I do wonder how far behind liberals are. Grants Pass v. Johnson may have come out of Oregon, but it isn’t heartening to know that in California, the supposed bastion of far-left lawlessness and bleeding heart liberals, Gavin Newsom isn’t above making a photo-op out of destroying what little shelter these people have:
How far are we really from treating our homeless like our polite neighbors up north do? The only difference will be that our government-sponsored killing program won’t be rooted in an ever-growing right to die movement. It’ll sprout from tough-on-crime rhetoric and NIMBYism.
While the case was being argued, what should have been one of the most compelling arguments against the Court’s support of the ordinance was that Oregon effectively relegated the status of homelessness to being criminally punishable. The majority pushed that argument aside and claimed that they were merely regulating actions. It doesn’t take too much mental maneuvering to arguing that under Kilmeade’s suggestion, you wouldn’t be killing people because they’re homeless, but merely because of their refusal to take aid and a presumption of criminality. But hey, he said sorry — no harm, no foul. Just don’t be surprised when his words become part of a Supreme Court opinion; Alito is no stranger to getting inspiration for his opinions from Fox.
Edit 09/15/25: There is some controversy over if the Charlie Kirk quote Karen Attiah posted that cost her her job was accurate or not. While Kirk did not explicitly state that all Black women lack the mental capacity to do difficult jobs, it was clearly the sentiment. Thankfully, what was actually said is readily available for public record and can be seen below:
Who knew the right would get this worked up over paraphrasing?
Earlier: Struggling With The Status Versus Conduct Distinction? So Are The Supreme Court Justices
SCOTUS Just Greenlit The Crime Of ‘Sleeping While Homeless’ As Totally Fair Game
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
The post Fox And Friends Talking Head Blurted Out The Grants Pass v. Johnson End Game appeared first on Above the Law.
We may no longer be on the cusp of civil war because the main Charlie Kirk shooting suspect was “demographically uncooperative,” but his shooting has manifested a widespread sensitivity to the language talking heads use, for fear that their words may either be “too insensitive” or “incite violence.” Take, for example, MSNBC’s decision to fire Matthew Dowd for daring to share one of the most violent and evil sentiments known to man — what goes around comes around:
In the same week, Fox and Friends anchor Brian Kilmeade casually suggested that being homeless and and refusing state shelter should warrant the death penalty:
Just for clarity’s sake — “involuntary legal injection” is just a fancy way of saying “murder.” What was the fallout for this, an actual call to violence against a class of vulnerable people facing rising homicide rates? He just said oopsie and got to keep his job:
Hey, if that’s the standard for forgiveness, can Karen Attiah get her job back after allegedly “endangering the physical safety of colleagues” for merely posting a Charlie Kirk quote?
I think the real difference is that for many, Charlie Kirk’s life is one that mattered, while the lives of people who are homeless are ones that burden. And while the right are the only ones openly advocating killing the homeless, I do wonder how far behind liberals are. Grants Pass v. Johnson may have come out of Oregon, but it isn’t heartening to know that in California, the supposed bastion of far-left lawlessness and bleeding heart liberals, Gavin Newsom isn’t above making a photo-op out of destroying what little shelter these people have:
How far are we really from treating our homeless like our polite neighbors up north do? The only difference will be that our government-sponsored killing program won’t be rooted in an ever-growing right to die movement. It’ll sprout from tough-on-crime rhetoric and NIMBYism.
While the case was being argued, what should have been one of the most compelling arguments against the Court’s support of the ordinance was that Oregon effectively relegated the status of homelessness to being criminally punishable. The majority pushed that argument aside and claimed that they were merely regulating actions. It doesn’t take too much mental maneuvering to arguing that under Kilmeade’s suggestion, you wouldn’t be killing people because they’re homeless, but merely because of their refusal to take aid and a presumption of criminality. But hey, he said sorry — no harm, no foul. Just don’t be surprised when his words become part of a Supreme Court opinion; Alito is no stranger to getting inspiration for his opinions from Fox.
Edit 09/15/25: There is some controversy over if the Charlie Kirk quote Karen Attiah posted that cost her her job was accurate or not. While Kirk did not explicitly state that all Black women lack the mental capacity to do difficult jobs, it was clearly the sentiment. Thankfully, what was actually said is readily available for public record and can be seen below:
Who knew the right would get this worked up over paraphrasing?
Earlier: Struggling With The Status Versus Conduct Distinction? So Are The Supreme Court Justices
SCOTUS Just Greenlit The Crime Of ‘Sleeping While Homeless’ As Totally Fair Game
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
The post Fox And Friends Talking Head Blurted Out The Grants Pass v. Johnson End Game appeared first on Above the Law.
