Runaway Judges

The Bane of our existences

from JoeUser Forums

We have a new President-Elect in Barak Hussein Obama. He will make hundreds of federal court appointments, and we will pray for him that he will take this responsibility very seriously. The audacity of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the State Courts, in many of their decisions, has shocked most of us. For Instance.

In 1962, Prayer was restricted in the public schools.

In 1973, the Court found that the "right to personal privacy" which erroneously included to unrestricted abortion {the case was called Roe V Wade and now 45 Million babies have been sacrificed on the "alter of choice"}

In 1985, the court overturned a state law setting aside a moment of " silence for voluntary prayer in public schools." {the favorite weapon of these Judges, and those that support them, is the well known "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The courts have so twisted these words that those that call themselves "liberals" and so-called "moderates" are convinced that the Establishment Clause means that there should be a "separation of church and state" of course the term itself CANNOT BE FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. But today it is quoted as IF it is part of the Constitution!

In 2002, the court overruled a Texas law allowing high school students to pray at athletic events.

In 2000, The SCOTUS struck down Nebraska's law banning Partial-birth Abortion{ it was not until 2007 after a long protracted court battle, that the court finally upheld the federal ban on this ruling}

In 2003, SCOTUS ruled that Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to commit SODOMY, writing for the Majority Justice Anthony Kennedy said "we have to look at Foreign law" {so now our rights are no longer dependent on a long revered moral tradition, but on legal trends in other nations!

The list of Judges running amok and legislating from the bench is just to long to list, when will Americans stand up and say ENOUGH!!!!

politics
23,438 views 37 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top

legislating from the bench
End of quote

The only case from the ones that you presented that was in any way legislating from the bench was Roe.  The others are merely doing what the judicial branch was meant to do, interpret laws and act as a check on the legislative branch to prevent unconstitutional laws.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

All the cases cited were examples of the courts legislating new laws from the Bench. I have no idea where you see only one.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top

Let's take it case by case.

In 1962, Prayer was restricted in the public schools.
End of quote

This is declaring a practice at a government entity to be unconstitutional because it is favoring one religion over another.  That isn't legislating from the bench.

In 1973, the Court found that the "right to personal privacy" which erroneously included to unrestricted abortion {the case was called Roe V Wade and now 45 Million babies have been sacrificed on the "alter of choice"}
End of quote

While I am pro-chioce I will give you that this is the closest of your examples to legislating from the bench.

In 1985, the court overturned a state law setting aside a moment of " silence for voluntary prayer in public schools."
End of quote

This is very similar to the first case.  While I don't necessarily have a problem with a moment of silence it is still establishing the favoring of religions that allow silent prayer.  Allowing for prayer in school at all is involving religion in a government entity which is unconstitutional.  Whether the constitution spells out separation of church and state or not it is clearly what was implied as Thomas Jefferson stated later in his life.

In 2002, the court overruled a Texas law allowing high school students to pray at athletic events.
End of quote

See my previous statements about a government entity and prayer.  It is unconstitutional, not legislating from the bench.

In 2000, The SCOTUS struck down Nebraska's law banning Partial-birth Abortion{ it was not until 2007 after a long protracted court battle, that the court finally upheld the federal ban on this ruling}
End of quote

This is ruling on past court cases not legislating from the bench.

In 2003, SCOTUS ruled that Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to commit SODOMY, writing for the Majority Justice Anthony Kennedy said "we have to look at Foreign law" {so now our rights are no longer dependent on a long revered moral tradition, but on legal trends in other nations!
End of quote

The only reason any law was made outlawing sodomy was because of the Bible which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Again this isn't legislating from the bench it is performing their check on the legislative branch.  You may not like the idea of homosexuality, you may even think that it is a sin but that doesn't mean it should be deemed illegal.  Just like you may not like people who take the lord's name in vane it would be unconstitutional to make it illegal to do so.

So like I said there is only one case here that is legislating from the bench.  I'm not saying that judges don't legislate from the bench, they certainly have and it shouldn't be allowed but of the examples you provided only one really fit the bill.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

EL-DUDERINOon Dec 11, 2008
Let's take it case by case.
In 1962, Prayer was restricted in the public schools.
This is declaring a practice at a government entity to be unconstitutional because it is favoring one religion over another. That isn't legislating from the bench.
End of quote

yes it is, because it does not require what religion you MUST pray about, you can be Jewish and pray in the Jewish manner. so this argument is bogus.

In 1985, the court overturned a state law setting aside a moment of " silence for voluntary prayer in public schools."
This is very similar to the first case. While I don't necessarily have a problem with a moment of silence it is still establishing the favoring of religions that allow silent prayer. Allowing for prayer in school at all is involving religion in a government entity which is unconstitutional. Whether the constitution spells out separation of church and state or not it is clearly what was implied as Thomas Jefferson stated later in his life

Again since it is using something in the Constitution that does not exist "separation of Church and state" this argument is also bogus.

In 2000, The SCOTUS struck down Nebraska's law banning Partial-birth Abortion{ it was not until 2007 after a long protracted court battle, that the court finally upheld the federal ban on this ruling}
This is ruling on past court cases not legislating from the bench.
End of quote
.
End of quote

Again what happened to states rights? when a state passes a simple law that allows a CHOICE in whether to pray or not to pray there is no infringement on anyone's right nor is it promoting any one religion over the other.

I( see this one way, you see it another way, Judges legislate from the bench all the time and the examples I set forth are good examples, maybe when a few more people weigh in on the subject we will see if I am wrong or right, If I am wrong I will admit it freely, will you?

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top

yes it is, because it does not require what religion you MUST pray about, you can be Jewish and pray in the Jewish manner. so this argument is bogus.
End of quote

If I am remembering correctly there were school lead prayers prior to that 1962 case which meant that the school was favoring one religion over another.  What if a student happened to be Hindu and the prayer was judeao-christian in nature.  That is favoring one religion over another which is unconstitutional.

Again since it is using something in the Constitution that does not exist "separation of Church and state" this argument is also bogus.
End of quote

Like I said "Separation of Church and State" may not be spelled out in the constitution but it is implied, it is the courts responsibility to interpret the constitution and make rulings based on that.  They reasoned that the constitution implied a separation of church and state and ruled accordingly.  That is NOT legislating from the bench.

Again what happened to states rights? when a state passes a simple law that allows a CHOICE in whether to pray or not to pray there is no infringement on anyone's right nor is it promoting any one religion over the other.
End of quote

States definitely have the right to make whatever laws they want with two major conditions, the law cannot contradict any federal law (or the US constitution) and the law cannot violate the state's constitution.  The idea of prayer in schools violates the 1st amendment of the US constitution therefore it is the courts responsibility to rule that the law is unconstituional.  A moment of silence is not sufficient for some religions to do their prayers.  Some religions require verbal chanting and/or physical movements, a moment of silence puts a preference on certain religions over others again this is unconstitutional and the courts have every right to strike down laws like that in their capacity as a check on the legislative branch.

I( see this one way, you see it another way, Judges legislate from the bench all the time and the examples I set forth are good examples, maybe when a few more people weigh in on the subject we will see if I am wrong or right, If I am wrong I will admit it freely, will you?
End of quote

As I stated I agree that some judges do legislate from the bench and they should not, I was simply pointing out that I don't think the examples you provided really proved your point, that's all.  As for admiting when I'm wrong, I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong but as of right now I still maintain that the cases you provided (save one) really don't show legislating from the bench.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is very similar to the first case.
End of quote

Actually, while the intent was I believe to circumvent the ruling, clearly this is a case of Judges making law as a moment of silence is not religious or mandatory prayer.  I give MM this round.

See my previous statements about a government entity and prayer.
End of quote

This one again goes to MM.  As the ruling prevented students from practicing their religion, not stopping the schools from enforcing a religion.  That was the case, and it was based on the erroneouos ruling of "separation", but clearly it is not based on any precedent or document.

The only reason any law was made outlawing sodomy was because of the Bible which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
End of quote

And here we disagree with the interpretation (not the actual ruling).  Clearly there is more than one source (not just the bible - look at ancient law for precedence for one) of the ruling, and none are found in the constitution.  This one was based on the RoeVWade error and seems selective in its interpreation (as was Roe V Wade).  There are numerous instances where the government is infringing on our right to privacy - yet they are not thrown out unilaterally.

And in so ruling, the courts are legislating.  No longer are the legislature or executive making law, but the judges as they seem to decide which laws can be enforced and which cannot.  On a purely arbitrary basis.

I will agree that not all of MM's list is judicial tyranny, but he is just scratching the surface.  Clearly there is no basis in law, precedence or jurisprudence to have the California SC to even review the latest amendment to their constitution, yet they are.  And should they over turn it, then California will no longer be a democracy but a Judicial dictatorship.

I think we all agree that there are a lot of laws that none of us like, yet we obey them because our representatives passed them.  Now we dont have to.  We just get appointed judge jury and executioner, and we are good to trash the laws we do not agree with.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 6
This is very similar to the first case. Actually, while the intent was I believe to circumvent the ruling, clearly this is a case of Judges making law as a moment of silence is not religious or mandatory prayer.  I give MM this round.See my previous statements about a government entity and prayer.This one again goes to MM.  As the ruling prevented students from practicing their religion, not stopping the schools from enforcing a religion.  That was the case, and it was based on the erroneouos ruling of "separation", but clearly it is not based on any precedent or document.The only reason any law was made outlawing sodomy was because of the Bible which is UNCONSTITUTIONALAnd here we disagree with the interpretation (not the actual ruling).  Clearly there is more than one source (not just the bible - look at ancient law for precedence for one) of the ruling, and none are found in the constitution.  This one was based on the RoeVWade error and seems selective in its interpreation (as was Roe V Wade).  There are numerous instances where the government is infringing on our right to privacy - yet they are not thrown out unilaterally.And in so ruling, the courts are legislating.  No longer are the legislature or executive making law, but the judges as they seem to decide which laws can be enforced and which cannot.  On a purely arbitrary basis.I will agree that not all of MM's list is judicial tyranny, but he is just scratching the surface.  Clearly there is no basis in law, precedence or jurisprudence to have the California SC to even review the latest amendment to their constitution, yet they are.  And should they over turn it, then California will no longer be a democracy but a Judicial dictatorship.I think we all agree that there are a lot of laws that none of us like, yet we obey them because our representatives passed them.  Now we dont have to.  We just get appointed judge jury and executioner, and we are good to trash the laws we do not agree with.
End of Dr's quote

I did not add all the ruling I could have added showing Judges legislating from the bench as it would have made this article prohibitively long to read, there are so many cases of Federal and State courts making new laws from the bench that someone would have to write an article 6 times in length the one I wrote. I thank you DocG for your analysis.

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top

Actually, while the intent was I believe to circumvent the ruling, clearly this is a case of Judges making law as a moment of silence is not religious or mandatory prayer. I give MM this round.
End of quote

We will just have to agree to disagree here because I still maintain that a moment of silence, intended for prayer, discriminates against religions that do not do silent prayer.

This one again goes to MM. As the ruling prevented students from practicing their religion, not stopping the schools from enforcing a religion. That was the case, and it was based on the erroneouos ruling of "separation", but clearly it is not based on any precedent or document.
End of quote

Again we will just have to agree to disagree because even though this was student led prayer it was till at a school sanctioned event and could be seen as discriminating against other religions which is not allowed by the constitution.  Like I said while separation of church and state may not be spelled out in the constitution it is implied.

And here we disagree with the interpretation (not the actual ruling). Clearly there is more than one source (not just the bible - look at ancient law for precedence for one) of the ruling, and none are found in the constitution. This one was based on the RoeVWade error and seems selective in its interpreation (as was Roe V Wade). There are numerous instances where the government is infringing on our right to privacy - yet they are not thrown out unilaterally.
End of quote

Whether you want to say the ruling was based on religion or on privacy I still don't see this as legislating from the bench but rather the judicial branch checking the legislative branch which is their duty.

Clearly there is no basis in law, precedence or jurisprudence to have the California SC to even review the latest amendment to their constitution, yet they are. And should they over turn it, then California will no longer be a democracy but a Judicial dictatorship.
End of quote

I agree with you on this one.  While I personally disagree with that amendment that was passed, it is now passed and therefore constitutional in the state of California and for any judge to overturn that would be legillating from the bench unless they somehow think that the amendment violates the US constitution which would be a very hard sell if you ask me.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

intended for prayer, discriminates against religions that do not do silent prayer.
End of quote

Here's my beef (this is a tangent, as I respect our agreeto disagree).  No one can know intent unless stated.  And it is not stated.  So I will "read" into it something that you may not.  Which is normal, we are human after all.  But when they start reading "intent" into anything, what they are doing is saying "IMHO".  IN other words, they are legislating from the bench.

It is the key reason I do not like or condone hate crimes.  With few exceptions, no one can know intent.  INfer it?  We do all the time, but then your inference is not the same as mine.

Again we will just have to agree to disagree because even though this was student led prayer it was till at a school sanctioned event and could be seen as discriminating against other religions which is not allowed by the constitution.
End of quote

The rulings, constitution, and even intent of the documents used to create the separation of church and state - never - have stated "freedom FROM religion".  The very idea that I pray at my desk can now be called into question with no basis in law or precedence.  A student led prayer is not the organization promoting or condoning it, but it is freedom of speech.  After all, I doubt most cities that allow the Klan to march condone or support them, but they have to allow them.  This one goes against the very Amendment they are claiming, and again has no rational basis in either history or the constitution.

Whether you want to say the ruling was based on religion or on privacy I still don't see this as legislating from the bench but rather the judicial branch checking the legislative branch which is their duty.
End of quote

That is why I did not disagree with you on the ruling.  But clearly when the government prevents you from practicing some things, and not others, and the courts are only ruling on the ones they see as "not fair" (from their warped perspective of fairness) they are legislating.  If they were ruling, then they would rule on all privacy laws the same.  Not just the ones they did not like.

 

Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top

Here's my beef (this is a tangent, as I respect our agreeto disagree). No one can know intent unless stated. And it is not stated. So I will "read" into it something that you may not. Which is normal, we are human after all. But when they start reading "intent" into anything, what they are doing is saying "IMHO". IN other words, they are legislating from the bench.
End of quote

A judges job is to interpret the law.  That's what they do, so them reading "intent" is perfectly within the bounds of their duties.

It is the key reason I do not like or condone hate crimes. With few exceptions, no one can know intent. INfer it? We do all the time, but then your inference is not the same as mine.
End of quote

This is slightly different.  A judge is perfectly within their duty to interpret intent when it comes to laws but when it comes to an alledged criminal they have to rule based on the facts, some facts may lead to a suggested intent but a judge can't outright assume intent on an alledged criminal.  I am not completely against hate crimes because I do think that there are instances where it is clear that the accused clearly was coming from a place of hate but I do agree that the term "hate crime" is used too often and applied when it isn't necessary.  Just because a victim happens to be gay or a minority doesn't automatically make the crime a hate crime.  Now if the victim was singled out because they are gay or a member of a minority I do think that it should be called a hate crime.

never - have stated "freedom FROM religion".
End of quote

I disagree.  The freedom of religion is the same as the freedom from religion.  Just as you have a right to pray at your desk (and that should definitely be protected) I have a right to not have prayer forced down my throat if I happen to attend a sporting event or a school play.  My freedom of religion is that I happen to not practice any religion and I shouldn't be forced to do so just because of where I am.

A student led prayer is not the organization promoting or condoning it, but it is freedom of speech.
End of quote

It is if the students feel compelled to join in the student led prayer because they fear how the other students will treat them if the don't.  A school is a very different environment than any other public property because it is government run.  The Klan would not be barred from protesting or marching on city streets but they would be barred from protesting or marching on school property because it would be seen as the school condoning the message.  Similarly you won't see the Klan marching or protesting inside of any government building because that would be seen as the government condoning the message.  In this example look at at all the school grounds as the interior of a government building.

That is why I did not disagree with you on the ruling. But clearly when the government prevents you from practicing some things, and not others, and the courts are only ruling on the ones they see as "not fair" (from their warped perspective of fairness) they are legislating. If they were ruling, then they would rule on all privacy laws the same. Not just the ones they did not like.
End of quote

Can you provide an example of a court case where the court ruled in favor of the law encroching on someones privacy?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  If it is a simple matter of the judge liking this one and not that one then that may be considered legislating but it would have to be the same court doing it for that to apply since each judge may interpret the same law in slightly different ways.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

basically abortion, homosexuality, and school prayer... homosexuality and school are indeed unconstitutional because of seperation of church and state. Abortion is indeed legislating from the bench. (has nothing to do with privacy), but it was overall beneficial to make such legislation.

Besides, the judicial branch is an equal member of the checks and balances system. You can't just expect it to have no powers whatsoever.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

A judges job is to interpret the law. That's what they do, so them reading "intent" is perfectly within the bounds of their duties.
End of quote

Only in interpreting the law, not actions.  BIG difference.

This is slightly different.
End of quote

No, it is exactly the same.  Looking for intent in a law is one thing.  Looking for intent in an individual is divination.

I disagree. The freedom of religion is the same as the freedom from religion.
End of quote

No.  The first allows free practice thereof.  The latter prohibits the practice thereof.  After all, I pass many religious celebrations and rites and sites on my way to and from work every day.  The latter would allow me to have them legally removed from my sight.

It is if the students feel compelled to join in the student led prayer because they fear how the other students will treat them if the don't.
End of quote

Again, I disagree.  QUite simply, the inference and practice are not conducive to reality.  By your reasoning, we all must root for the home team at a sporting event since the majority of the participants are and there would be "fear" of not fitting in.

There is always that fear. and the weak willed and minded are always going to suffer from it (Remember Guyana).  But we cannot run a country based on the fear of the few.

Can you provide an example of a court case where the court ruled in favor of the law encroching on someones privacy?
End of quote

Suicide.

Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top

No, it is exactly the same. Looking for intent in a law is one thing. Looking for intent in an individual is divination.
End of quote

But when the facts of the case show a clear intent then it is not a deviation.  If a KKK member or neo-nazi walks into a gay bar and attacks a patron or goes up and attacks someone waiting to get into a known gay club then the intent there is that it was a hate crime because the individual or individuals were singled out for being a member of a minority out of a place of hate.  Now if there was someone beaten to within an inch of their lives who was at a bank or waiting in line at a restaurant that would not be a hate crime even if the individual was a member of a minority.  Intent can certainly be inferred by the facts of the case.

No. The first allows free practice thereof. The latter prohibits the practice thereof. After all, I pass many religious celebrations and rites and sites on my way to and from work every day. The latter would allow me to have them legally removed from my sight.
End of quote

I disagree.  The freedom of religion allows for the practicing of no religion which is equivilent to a freedom from religion.  It does not extend to passing religious sites and being able to stop them because there is nothing forcing you to remain there and partake in the celebration or the rite.  However if you are at school and there is a led prayer you can't get away from that, you are having religion forced on you.  Here's another example, one of the local radio stations plays nothing but christmas music for the 5 weeks between Thanksgiving and New Years.  I get extremely annoyed by it because after a day or so you have heard every christmas song ever written and played on the radio.  Now I can't stop the radio station from playing the music because I can very easily change the channel.  However if I was in a place that I had no choice in being at like jury duty or school I could attempt to stop them from playing the non-stop christmas music.

Again, I disagree. QUite simply, the inference and practice are not conducive to reality. By your reasoning, we all must root for the home team at a sporting event since the majority of the participants are and there would be "fear" of not fitting in.
End of quote

I think we will have to continue to agree to disagree here.  I think there is a big difference between a led prayer and rooting for the home team and the big difference is how people react.  Competition between teams is seen as ok, most people won't care what team you root for, they might verbally harass you a bit but it is generally all in good fun.  However when people learn that you differ in religious views there tends to be a much bigger reaction. 

This is a little different but if someone were to find out that their neighbor were a wiccan this can cause the neighborhood rumor mill to crank into high gear and suddenly the neighbor is an animal sacrificing witch who will put spells on anyone who crosses her.  And all of that could have been started when someone saw you not prayer at the school sporting event.

Suicide.
End of quote

But the courts are starting to come around on this one.  More and more are actually allowing for assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients.  I will agree that this is definitely one situation where the courts have overwhelmingly been encroching on ones right to privacy though.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

But when the facts of the case show a clear intent then it is not a deviation.
End of quote

Divination, not deviation (ok, you may mean the latter, but I meant the former).

If a KKK member or neo-nazi walks into a gay bar and attacks a patron or goes up and attacks someone waiting to get into a known gay club then the intent there is that it was a hate crime because the individual or individuals were singled out for being a member of a minority out of a place of hate.
End of quote

I would argue against that.  Since clearly they were in a place where all were gay, their chosing one is just a crime.  And probably not a hate crime since this was simply a premeditated one.

Hate is involved with many crimes, but then one can also argue that without hate there would be no crime (in an instance not as a general statement), so convicting someone of a crime and then of hate is double jeopardy.  And in some cases just flat out wrong.

The freedom of religion allows for the practicing of no religion which is equivilent to a freedom from religion.
End of quote

Freedom of religion indeed allows for the freedom of no religion.  But that does not guarantee you the freedom from religion.  If I pass you on the street and say "God Bless you" you are touched by religion.  You are not free from it.  YOu are free not to practice it, or participate in it, but no one can be free from it.  Unless they are monastic, or live in a totalitarian state where it is forbidden.

I think there is a big difference between a led prayer
End of quote

Led by whom?  If a student stands up and starts citing the OUr father, that is not forcing anyone to participate.  If I stand up and start a wave for the home team, that is not forcing you to participate.  Again, if the leader is just a spectator, then it can hardly be called led prayer.

But the courts are starting to come around on this one. More and more are actually allowing for assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients.
End of quote

And again legislating from the bench.  Allowing it because you think it is fine, is one thing. Ruling it unconstitutional is another.  SO far, no one has.  And that was just one.  Narcotics, dope, seatbelts (which are gaining, not losing), helmets are all examples of a deprivation of privacy that the courts are blindly accepting - because it fits their agenda, not because they are thinking in the vein of ROe V Wade.

Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top

Divination, not deviation (ok, you may mean the latter, but I meant the former).
End of quote

Sorry that's my fault, I misread your comment.  I still stand by my assessment that it is within a judges duties when the facts suggest an intent.

would argue against that. Since clearly they were in a place where all were gay, their chosing one is just a crime. And probably not a hate crime since this was simply a premeditated one.

Hate is involved with many crimes, but then one can also argue that without hate there would be no crime (in an instance not as a general statement), so convicting someone of a crime and then of hate is double jeopardy. And in some cases just flat out wrong.
End of quote

I would still argue that a crime driven out of a hate for a given group of people is deserving of a harsher punishment.  But I see what you're saying, I just don't think we will ever agree on it.

Freedom of religion indeed allows for the freedom of no religion. But that does not guarantee you the freedom from religion. If I pass you on the street and say "God Bless you" you are touched by religion. You are not free from it. YOu are free not to practice it, or participate in it, but no one can be free from it. Unless they are monastic, or live in a totalitarian state where it is forbidden.
End of quote

I mean free from having religion forced on you in a situation that you can't get away from, like school led prayer.  You have little choice in where you get your education (some parents can't afford private school) so to have religion forced on you there is violating your right to practice whatever religion you choose (or no religion at all).

Walking down the street is a different situation.  It's not like you would be forcibly stopping me in the street to preach the word of jesus to me, I have the ability to walk away from you if I so choose.

Led by whom? If a student stands up and starts citing the OUr father, that is not forcing anyone to participate. If I stand up and start a wave for the home team, that is not forcing you to participate. Again, if the leader is just a spectator, then it can hardly be called led prayer.
End of quote

But it was my understanding in the student led prayer case that it was read aloud over the PA and everyone in the crowd was expected to join in.  Just because it was a student who was leading the prayer doesn't mean that it was just a spectator in the crowd.  If you want to sit in a crowd and pray with your family that's one thing, but to have it be led over the PA is a different situation.  And like I said I think prayer is very different from led cheers or the wave based on how people react around you as a result.

And again legislating from the bench. Allowing it because you think it is fine, is one thing. Ruling it unconstitutional is another. SO far, no one has. And that was just one. Narcotics, dope, seatbelts (which are gaining, not losing), helmets are all examples of a deprivation of privacy that the courts are blindly accepting - because it fits their agenda, not because they are thinking in the vein of ROe V Wade.
End of quote

I can see your point here.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

But I see what you're saying, I just don't think we will ever agree on it.
End of quote

Hey!  I dont need converts, but appreciate the understanding.

It's not like you would be forcibly stopping me in the street to preach the word of jesus to me, I have the ability to walk away from you if I so choose.
End of quote

I take it you have never been in SF when the Hari Krishnas are out and about. ;)

But it was my understanding in the student led prayer case that it was read aloud over the PA and everyone in the crowd was expected to join in.
End of quote

I am sure there are cases of that.  In this particular case, however, the student (class president I think) decided on his own to say a prayer to open the game.  No one was forced, nor was it a planned event.  The court, wrongly in my opinion, ruled that was unconstitutional.  I say it was his freedom of speech.  He did it on his own, and was asked to say a few words.  Not as an authority of the school. Nor was it forced on anyone to participate (being Catholic, I dont always participate in Protestant prayers either - but I respectfully remain silent during their prayer).

 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

 Again, I disagree.  QUite simply, the inference and practice are not conducive to reality.  By your reasoning, we all must root for the home team at a sporting event since the majority of the participants are and there would be "fear" of not fitting in.
End of quote

Last time I read about someone who was cheering for the "wrong team" on the soccer stands they were lynched...

And I have come across some school prayer, its divisive and alienating. And has no basis in the bible anyways. The quran actually REQIRES muslims to pray 6 times a day. Most christians who pray regularly do so in the morning and in the evening, and neither should have anything to do with school.

Plus god has better things to do then make you win your football match (ugh, i hated the football team "moment of silence"... praying for victory in a GAME? if I was religion i'd be apalled at the blasphemy)

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Last time I read about someone who was cheering for the "wrong team" on the soccer stands they were lynched...
End of quote

That is why Soccer is not a national sport in the US, just the "civilized" European countries.

Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top

I take it you have never been in SF when the Hari Krishnas are out and about.
End of quote

Nope.  I have spent most of my life on the east coast.  I visited an Aunt in Washington State once and I was in New Mexico for about 2 weeks one summer but those were my only trips out west.

I am sure there are cases of that. In this particular case, however, the student (class president I think) decided on his own to say a prayer to open the game. No one was forced, nor was it a planned event. The court, wrongly in my opinion, ruled that was unconstitutional. I say it was his freedom of speech. He did it on his own, and was asked to say a few words. Not as an authority of the school. Nor was it forced on anyone to participate (being Catholic, I dont always participate in Protestant prayers either - but I respectfully remain silent during their prayer).
End of quote

If it was just a case of a student getting up and praying on his own then the court was way out of line.  If it became a regular event over the PA at the school however then I still maintain my position.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would still argue that a crime driven out of a hate for a given group of people is deserving of a harsher punishment.
End of quote

Why? If I beat a guy to death with a bat, how does my reason for doing it make it any more or less brutal? Any more or less a crime? 

 

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top

Why? If I beat a guy to death with a bat, how does my reason for doing it make it any more or less brutal? Any more or less a crime?
End of quote

In a way yes because your crime wasn't just on the individual victim(s) of your crime but on the group that they belong to.  Take the KKK when they were lynching people left and right, the victim of those crimes weren't just the people that were lynched but all black people because the KKK were trying to send a message.  The same can be said today when a skinhead beats down a homosexual, it isn't just the individual who is affected but the group.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

In a way yes
End of quote

The man is still dead.  WOuld he be less dead if it was dispassionately?

Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top

The man is still dead. WOuld he be less dead if it was dispassionately?
End of quote

True that man is dead no matter what but the hate comes in that it was essentailly a threat or warning to a group of people not just one individual thus making the crime more than just the murder.

Also hate crimes involve more than just physical assaults, think of burning crosses on someone's lawn.  That is more than just vandalism it is a threat on members of a particular group.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

On the one hand, what is NOT a hate crime? when was the last time a person bashed someone's head with a bat because they loved them? The whole thing seemed rediculous.

On the other hand, it seems rediculous because it is ill explained... Look at a criminal as a potential danger to society. A person who murders someone not because of a personal reason, but merely his group association, is comitting to murder every last member of that group. When the KKK lynches a black guy they are comitting to murdering every black skinned person.

On the other-other hand. A guy who randomly commits murder of a passerby is showing his willingness to randomly kill EVERYONE of EVERY color.

Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 24
On the one hand, what is NOT a hate crime? when was the last time a person bashed someone's head with a bat because they loved them? The whole thing seemed rediculous.

On the other hand, it seems rediculous because it is ill explained... Look at a criminal as a potential danger to society. A person who murders someone not because of a personal reason, but merely his group association, is comitting to murder every last member of that group. When the KKK lynches a black guy they are comitting to murdering every black skinned person.

On the other-other hand. A guy who randomly commits murder of a passerby is showing his willingness to randomly kill EVERYONE of EVERY color.
End of taltamir's quote

It is not about hate of an individual but hate of a group and attempting to intimidate that group through actions.

Look I don't deny that the term "hate crime" is overused and probably over-applied when trying cases, but I do feel that there are some crimes worthy of the term "hate crime" that should have more severe punishments assigned to them.  Maybe there needs to be a moritorium on "hate crimes" for the time being until a better legal definition can be found.