From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 00:06:59 MDT
On Monday, May 22, 2000 3:54 PM Michael S. Lorrey retroman@turbont.net
wrote:
> > I gather such laws arose either to overcome local opposition to the law
or
> > to make it look like politicians are being tough on crime. I wonder if
> > anyone has assessed their impact.
>
> Since US v Lopez first overturned the law in 1995, gun crime in schools
> has dropped to its lowest level in decades. The current hysteria over
> Columbine and other school shootings is so distanced from reality its
> insane.
It mgiht be insane, but it appears insanity has the day here. That's why I
said, "Don't uncork the champaigne...":/
> > I would not praise them too highly. In several recent decisions, they
> > expanded police powers.
>
> The Miranda ruling was odd, I admit. I would not have been surprised if
> they just said that not mirandizing someone was no longer grounds for
> dismissal, but removing the requirement entirely was a bit of a reach.
> Considering todays education system, you can't expect everyone to know
> those rights, although the prevalence of Miranda in tv cop shows has
> generated a pretty extensive public knowledge of them.
The Miranda ruling was only one of many ruling in the past few years that
increased police power. I cannot cite all of them right now, but if I
remember I'll get back to this list on them. So, if you trust me here, the
recent Miranda thing was not isolated. The usual suspects, especially
Scalia, are firmly "law and order" -- regardless of constitutionality.
> > Assuming he gets elected... But the problem is, a Conservative Court is
no
> > friend to freedom in general. Surely, we might -- ah, might! -- get
some
> > gun control removed, but in other areas, such as police power, we might
have
> > more freedoms curtailed.
>
> The current Court's ruling philosphy seems to be based on literal
> interpretation, original intent, that sort of thing. While it does seem
> to take a dim view of criminal's rights, it has done very well to hold
> up freedom of expression in some areas. For example, Playboy.com just
> won a case before the SCOTUS against a law that mandated that they
> scramble all of their broadcasts occuring during daytime hours.
Scalia, in that ruling today, was among the dissenting voices. Scalia,
again, was all for government power. Justice Scalia, how I hate thee. Let
me count the ways!
> On the
> other hand, everyone BUT Thomas voted to uphold workplace restrictions
> on racist speech (while Thomas is a vocal proponent of free speech, I
> think his vote was mainly an 'up yours' toward the NAACP and others that
> have been out to get him and who opposed his appointment.)
But do you see the pattern here? The Court is basically being pulled Left
and Right. This needs to be corrected. Surely, we could have worse, but we
also could have better.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:46 MST