Reply With Quote
The key word in your entire post is "construed."
This is you: "bad implications......dad got a memo.....can't discrimihate from the pulpit.....world is ending.....OMGz."
what was your point except to imply that your father's first amendment rights are being stifled b/c of a propsed "hate-crimes" bill?
The key word in your entire post is "construed."
are you suggesting that we now have an activist SCOTUS that will go against years and years of legal precedent in order to cir vent the legislative process?
Those constructions are the Law of the Land, Big Guy.
but now he has Roberts and Alito to un-construe all that hippie nonsense about equal protection
The potential erosion of stare decisis is a beautiful thing for some, I guess.
It's funny -- when liberal judges do that, they're called judicial activists.
What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.
Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!
Liability Roulette -- now you don't even have to go to Vegas to gamble away your fortune, or even your life.What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.
Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!
That's an incoherency.... GOD is JUST and delivers justice according to His supreme wisdom. Sometimes it is delayed and sometimes it is delivered instantly. The fact that justice is served according to His Holy and Righteous standards does not make GOD 'vengeful'.
Some law is just wrongly construed by the Court. Hey, we all make mistakes, nothing says it can't be corrected.
Roe vs. Wade being a glaring example.
Suggest you read Article I, Sections 9 and 10, of the U. S. Cons ution regarding prohibitions against ex post facto laws.What kind of boring person wants predictability in the law anyway? With Yoni's approach, the law will be exciting.
Will this valid contract still be valid tomorrow? Who knows! Can I be prosecuted tomorrow for a completely legal act I perform today? Could be!
Of course, one would have to think it's a mistake before believing that a construction was wrong and setting out to correct it.
And, of course, there is that whole constancy in the law issue. It's difficult to imagine that even this Supreme Court would be at all inclined to re-think the fundamental tenets of its Equal Protection jurisprudence. The Court's not generally in the business of eroding "rights" that have become bedrock principles of cons utional law.
Maybe it's time the Court did...look at their previous bad decisions, that is.
The interpretation of which would change from court to court under your scenario.
I'm guessing you should be the final arbiter of what is or isn't bad -- what with your vast legal experience?
The thing that bothers me most about that reply...is that justice is delayed and sometimes it is not. Complete and utter garbage...and I just can't accept that.
I'm not a believer..and the more I read scripture whether it be The Bible, Koran, or the Torah..the farther away it pushes me from religion...but to quote Elie Wiesel in Night..."I concurred with Job. I wasn't denying his existence but I question his absolute justice."
A Bustling Hate-Crime Industry
By George F. Will
Sunday, May 13, 2007; B07
Political entrepreneurship involves devising benefits to excite or mollify niche cons uencies. Hence HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which has passed the House, trailing clouds of sanctimony -- lots of members announced their hatred of hate.
Hate-crime laws -- 45 states already have them; Congress does not mind being duplicative -- mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that government especially disapproves of. That is, crimes committed because of, not merely accompanied by, those thoughts. Mind-reading juries are required to distinguish causation from correlation.
The federal hate-crime law enacted in 1968 enhanced punishments only for crimes against persons engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. HR 1592 would extend special federal protections to persons who are crime victims because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender iden y or disability. But there are many other groups, so there will be other hate-crime bills.
Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse). Local law enforcement organizations favor HR 1592, which promises money. Among the more than 200 organizations supposedly ardent for the bill are the American Music Therapy Association, the Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Catholics for a Free Choice, Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries, the International Dyslexia Association, Rock the Vote, and the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual. Who knew?
Hate-crime laws are indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy. They score points in the sentiment compe ion by conferring special government concern for more and more particular groups.
Laws hold us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. But government increasingly wants to inventory and furnish our minds, removing socially undesirable desires. Law has always had the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct, but hate-crime laws treat certain actions as especially wicked because the actors had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind.
This draws government steadily deeper into stigmatizing certain thoughts and at udes, which incites more and more groups to clamor for inclusion in the ranks of the especially protected. And Timothy Lynch of the Cato Ins ute notes that prosecutors of supposed hate crimes must pry into defendants' lives -- books and magazines read, Internet sites visited, the nature of his or her friends -- to uncover evidence of unsavory thinking.
If the bill makes it to the president's desk, he probably will veto it because it is moral exhibitionism by Congress with no cons utional authorization. HR 1592 justifies itself under Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The bill simply asserts that hate crimes affect such commerce and are committed using articles that have "traveled" in interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court, however, has rejected"the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce. The Cons ution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local."
By conferring special status -- enhanced protection -- on certain government-favored groups, HR 1592 traduces the principle of equality before the law. Yet Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it honors "the tradition of our Founders, that every person is created equal." Here is another sample of the House debate, from Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.):
"My granddaughter Julia is 3 years old. She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully. The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness. It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for HR 1592."
Plucky Julia aside, questions remain. Are all rapes hate crimes because rapists pick the victims because of their gender? When in 1989, a gang of black and Hispanic youths went "wilding" in Central Park, raping and savagely beating a white jogger, was this considered a hate crime? No, because the youths also assaulted some Hispanics, so their punishment was not enhanced.
When a surveillance camera recently taped a mugger beating and robbing a 101-year-old New York woman, he was charged with a hate crime -- presumably hatred of the elderly. His attack on a 51-year-old woman was not a hate crime. Complications multiply, protected categories proliferate. Next? People who wear fur or eat meat? Some writings by the killer at Virginia Tech expressed hatred of the rich, but they are not a category protected in this year's hate-crime legislation. Perhaps in next year's.
[email protected]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions