Moderateman Moderateman

Runaway Judges

▼

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
23,432 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.
End of quote

If someone burns a cross on my lawn, that is a crime.  I can care less if he does not like freckle faced nerds or bozos.  Convict of the crime, dont convict twice.  WHy should the guy get a lesser sentence for killing me than he does my neighbor?  Hate crime laws are just plain stupid.  Crimes are crimes.

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

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

That's conspiracy. It's already covered without hate crime laws.

Look I don't deny that the term "hatecrime" is overused and probably over-applied when trying cases
End of quote

And that's what makes hate crime laws stupid. Any crime can be called a hate crime. If I kill a guy, then I pretty much hate him. If I intend to kill everybody like that guy, then I can be charged with conspiracy. Adding hate crime laws to the mix is edging into the territory of criminalizing people's thoughts.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

good point... threatening an entire group? we have a law for it its called conspiracy... burn a cross on someone's lawn? its a death threat, vandalism, etc... What does it matter what color skin the perpetrator and the victim is? You make death threats in the form of burned crosses to a white guy you are going to jail anyways. Or the inverse... why should it be LESS of an offense to burn a cross in the yard of a white guy then it is of a black/jewish/whatever one? It is the same death threat.

 

Take rape for example, the three major causes of rape, the ones into which almost every case can be distilled according to psychologists, are:

1. Deriving enjoyment at the suffering of others.

2. Seeking revenge/punishment of an individual or a group. (ex: "she shouldn't have been such a bitch to me")

3. Bigotry (hate of women/lesbians/blacks/whites/hispanics/asians/jews/whatever.)


Hate crime laws mean either that you over punish or underpunish one and two... that 1 and 2 are somehow more valid acceptable reasons for rape and require less of a punishment.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

PS. the biggest issue is that it is thought control... The jury THINKS they know your beleifs and thus the REASONS why you comitted a crime, and based on those reasons increase or decrease your punishment.

While there is some room for "mitigating factors". the whole thing is very unreliable and is too easily abused.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

PPS... practical example:

1. Joe rapes judie because he is a sadist, he planned it, ambushed her, beats her, rapes her, and laughes at her before leaving her broken and crying.

2. Jeff got fired, he angerly follows his boss, salie home. He has no plan, just rage, at the spur of the moment he assults and rapes her.

3. Sam rapes shaniqua because she is black and he is a bigot.

 

If you take the hate crime approach, Joe and Jeff will get 5 years in prison each while sam gets 10 because his was a "hate-crime". Why do you think such a thing is justified? (personally I would say all three should be put to death, but if not, then at least give them the same punishment)

Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top

That's conspiracy. It's already covered without hate crime laws.
End of quote

I'm no lawyer but I don't think this is covered under conspiracy.  For a conspiracy you need to have two or more people involved in the planning of an action.  If a person is acting along out of hate for a group that isn't conspiracy.

Quoting taltamir, reply 5
PPS... practical example:

1. Joe rapes judie because he is a sadist, he planned it, ambushed her, beats her, rapes her, and laughes at her before leaving her broken and crying.

2. Jeff got fired, he angerly follows his boss, salie home. He has no plan, just rage, at the spur of the moment he assults and rapes her.

3. Sam rapes shaniqua because she is black and he is a bigot.

 

If you take the hate crime approach, Joe and Jeff will get 5 years in prison each while sam gets 10 because his was a "hate-crime". Why do you think such a thing is justified? (personally I would say all three should be put to death, but if not, then at least give them the same punishment)
End of taltamir's quote

Based on your example here I would say 1 and 3 deserve longer sentences because they are likely repeat offenders, 2 is less likely to repeat.  Now I agree I think rape should have the death sentence attached to it but that is a topic for discussion elsewhere.

 

Look like I have said I agree that hate-crime is probably tossed around too much and I can certainly see where you are all coming from in arguing against them.  I just happen to disagree and I doubt I will be change your minds and you probably aren't going to be able to change mine.  So why don't we just agree to disagree at this point?

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

So why don't we just agree to disagree at this point?
End of quote

I'll still say Toe-MAA-Toe. ;)

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 11
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.
End of taltamir's quote

There IS NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything about "separation of Church and State" not a single word or inference.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
End of quote

Right there in the first amendment: Congress is not allowed to make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

Allowing school prayer or banning homosexuality is "respecting an establishment of religion".

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

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)
End of quote
taltamiron Dec 16, 2008
End of quote

How do you know they are praying that no one gets injured on either side of the ball?

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

because some of them prayed aloud during the moment of silence. and they only mentioned victory (and sometimes doing violence unto the other team)

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 36
because some of them prayed aloud during the moment of silence. and they only mentioned victory (and sometimes doing violence unto the other team)
End of taltamir's quote

well then that is just plain disgusting, to ask G-Ds help to do violence to another human being is the same exact thing the terrorist do, not on the same scale of course but the train of thought is the same.