Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

8 

SNYDER v. PHELPS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Belying any suggestion that they had simply made general
comments about homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and 
the  United  States  military,  the  “epic”  addressed  the  Sny-
der family directly: 

“God  blessed  you,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Snyder,  with  a  re-
source and his name was Matthew.  He was an arrow 
in  your  quiver!  In  thanks  to  God  for  the  comfort  the 
child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that 
child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD!  You did 
JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil. 
 .

 . 

 .

 .

.

“Albert  and  Julie  RIPPED  that  body  apart  and 
taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to
commit adultery.  They taught him how to support the
largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire 
world,  the  Roman  Catholic  monstrosity.    Every  dime 
they  gave  the  Roman  Catholic  monster  they  con-
demned their own souls.  They also, in supporting sa-
tanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater. 
 .

 . 

 .

 .

.

“Then  after  all  that  they  sent  him  to  fight  for  the
United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock 
step  with  his  evil,  wicked,  and  sinful  manner  of  life, 
putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad 

—————— 

in Snyder’s petition for certiorari.  Ante, at 3, n. 1.  The epic, however, is 
not a distinct claim but a piece of evidence that the jury considered in
imposing liability for the claims now before this Court.  The protest and 
the  epic  are  parts  of  a  single  course  of  conduct  that  the  jury  found  to
constitute  intentional  infliction  of  emotional  distress.    See  580  F. 3d, 
at  225  (“[T]he  Epic  cannot  be  divorced  from  the  general  context  of
the  funeral  protest”).  The  Court’s  strange  insistence  that  the  epic  “is 
not  properly  before  us,”  ante,  at  3,  n. 1,  means  that  the  Court  has  not 
actually made “an independent examination of the whole record,” ante, 
at  7  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    And  the  Court’s  refusal  to 
consider the epic contrasts sharply with its willingness to take notice of
Westboro’s  protest  activities  at  other  times  and  locations.    See  ante, 
at 9.