Westboro’s Shirley Phelps-Roper Loves Supreme Court’s Women


Shirley Phelps-Roper and her anti-gay comrades from the Westboro Baptist Church appeared before the Supreme Court yesterday.

While it will be a bit until the Justices weigh in on whether Roper and her pals from the Westboro Baptist Church have a right to picket dead soldiers' funerals, Phelps-Roper has already penned a summary of her experience, a summary she sent to the gay blog Good As You.

Basically, Phelps-Roper loved the female Justices, but wasn't so hot on the men:

Alito was a serious disappointment. I don't know why I would expect him to man up and tell a squally rebel to drink a frosty mug of shut the hell up and AVERT your eyes.

On the other hand, the three women were lions of proper and simple First Amendment Law. When a nation is cursed of God, everything becomes so complicated and there [i]s no MAN among the people, so I find that dynamic to be altogether perfect.

Ah, well, let's see what Phelps-Roper thinks of these judicial women after they reach a verdict.


  1. niles says

    while I would love to see this band of idiots be shut up forever, they are probably the best thing to happen to gay rights in a long time.

  2. Acronym Jim says

    Phelps-Roper really said H-E-double-hockey-sticks in a pejorative sense? Ooooooo, she’s gonna buuurrrnnnnn.

  3. crispy says

    When Fred Phelps dies, what should I wear to picket his funeral, a pink tutu and rollerskates or a leather jock and harness? I just can’t decide!

  4. DR says

    You’s love to see what she thinks when an opinion is written? I’ll tell you exactly what she’s going to think.

    She’s gonna love them, because a ruling against the WBC is a ruling against any basic tenets of the 1st Amendment that many other groups we like hang their hats on. No way will the USSCt abridge those because it’s the WBC. They were in the buffer zone, followed all police directives, and were a s cooperative as they were legally required to be.

    I’d be absolutely astounded if this weren’t a unanimous decision. I can’t imagine anything but twisted judicial logic in an opinion suggesting that the WBC loses the right to protest because of the message.

  5. says

    This whole clan continually draws my attention like a scary, crazy train wreck. I find it interesting that they’re even pushing this case when they are very open about literally hating this country and not subscribing to it’s laws.

  6. says

    They’re twisted idiots, but they’re not stupid idiots. The decision should go their way. The justice is the fact that, at this point in history, their diatribes are not effective hate speech.

  7. George says

    That woman can give a soundbite, that’s for sure.

    God I wish Supreme Court hearing could be televised. This would have been Must See TV.

  8. says

    >>I’d be absolutely astounded if this weren’t a unanimous decision. I can’t imagine anything but twisted judicial logic in an opinion suggesting that the WBC loses the right to protest because of the message.<< While it’s hard to tell, I disagree. I was following the questioning yesterday. The Supremes had some pretty tough questions about how far free speech can be taken when it disparages another person. In question are the vile comments made about the father of the solider on their blog. This went way beyond the actual picketing and is what’s being considered. I don’t think they’ll throw free speech out the door, but it may very well allow him to sue Phelps in court (which he already had a $5 million dollar judgment against him, which was overturned and now landed at SCOTUS). This is “outrageous” speech and certainly defamatory. I don’t think Phelps will get off that easily. Definitely worth waiting for their verdict and see how this parlays into Chris Armstrong’s case.

  9. PIPI says

    I don’t want juries deciding what speech is okay. or judges for that matter. plus WBC is basically performance art at this point, amazing performance art.

    @crispy = exactly

  10. George says

    Aren’t you welcome to “free speech” but not exempt from the consequences of that speech? If your speech causes harm to another, don’t they have a right to sue you?

    So while the Phelps group should never be silenced, they shouldn’t be immune to people claiming they’ve been harmed by their speech?

    I’m definitely torn on the issue.

  11. patrick nyc says

    Look in Websters for bat shit crazy and there is a photo of Phelps-Roper. Proving once again that breeding with your own family begets retards, just look at the Palins.

  12. anon says

    If the judges decide that some tort occurred it would come down to things like if “your son is in Hell” is knowingly false. How could you know if it’s false?

  13. mad1026 says

    Is Shirley Phelps-Roper the only one of Fred’s daughters who didn’t marry her brother? Didn’t I read somewhere that Fred and his sons sexually abused their daughters and sisters?

  14. BobN says

    The Supreme Court only took this case to give Scalia et al. an opportunity to appear sympathetic and to give the “letter of the Constitution” originalist nonsense a boost in public opinion.

  15. walter says

    i don’t know most of free speech has become hate speech/ limbaugh beck hannarity oreilly
    phel[s bachmann all practice a high of hate speech not free speechbut when the shoe is on the other foot. you get beck crying