Criminal Law

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:24:18 GMT

No one has claimed they were kept from voting.

I'm not going to speculate what the media would have done, our what our blind justice would have done under different circumstances.

I didn't say the moonie times was wrong, just incomplete. Sorry you couldn't find the information you were looking for.

Please do file a FOIA request if this matter is important to you.

I can only imagine how upset you were when George Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court after losing the election.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:26:01 GMT

Looks like basically the same article.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:17:06 GMT

How did they determine no one was kept from voting. Setting there with a club and in uniform and calling people cracker-as one person claimed-is not intimidation? How do you think the media would have treated it if they were KKK and stood there with a club and called people the dreaded N word? How would our "blind" and impartial justice have treated them?

So then did the DOJ drop the charges and was the Mooney paper wrong? I couldn't find anything on the DOJ site about them dropping the case. I may file a FOIA request for info if I can't find another source.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:27:55 GMT

My source was the Philidelphia Bulletin, and I suspect the main stream media hasn't noted it because no voters were kept from voting. Black Panthers are not that rare of a site in Philly.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Sat, 30 May 2009 16:22:16 GMT

You said you don't consider the Mooney paper a reliable source, yet you commented on the charges being dropped. What was your source of information and perhaps you could explain why this news wasn't noted in the MSM?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:20:48 GMT

I don't consider the moonie times to be a reliable source for information. That said, it appears the Bush team didn't file their papers properly. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:03:37 GMT

War crimes.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:22:06 GMT

What would you suggest charging the Obama Admistration Justice Dept officials with?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

Not too hard to see where Justice is heading under this administration.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:20 GMT

What crimes do you have in mind?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:18:23 GMT

inform4:
but we have an out-of-control fiat government that ignores the Rule of Law and is attempting, no suceeding -- in tearing down its foundations brick by brick.

And it's time we prosecuted the Bush administration for it's crimes. I agree.

I also agree this bill should be rejected in the Senate. Punishment should be based on the results of crime, not the motive for commiting it.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

inform4 — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:09:16 GMT

I have to really agree with you on this issue. Not only do we have a fiat monetary system, but we have an out-of-control fiat government that ignores the Rule of Law and is attempting, no suceeding -- in tearing down its foundations brick by brick. The only thing "living" in our Constitution is the monster clone they have been implementing with no heart or soul.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

inform4 — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:03:56 GMT

In recently speaking to a dear friend of mine regarding the denigration of our U.S. Constitution by those we have elected to serve, and who have taken an oath of office -- he stated that we should be asking them, "What Article, Amendment or Section in the U.S. or State Constitution would you like to remove or change?" If they even bothered to answer (we the peon's in their eyes) that would sure give us clue of what their true motives are.

It seems more and with increasing velocity they are not only violating our Constitutions' (meaning Federal and State), but they are shrinking and decreasing the rights of the people, while increasing and expanding government authority greatly beyond the boundaries of the Rule of Law.

I hope we have enough intelligence in the Senate to have this bill tossed in the un-Constitutional trash heap.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

FreeSpeaker — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:45:43 GMT

According to the MichiganVotes (Mackinac Center) synopsis of this bill:

Passed in the House (66 to 43) on May 20, 2009, to establish a new “bias-motivated” criminal offense for a person who selects the target of a violent crime or property crime based on a perception of the victim’s disability; gender; national origin or ancestry; age; race, color, or ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression of gender; or a person’s or group’s association with one or more of these. Violations would be subject to up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine if the underlying (“predicate”) crime is a misdemeanor, and up to 50 percent more than the sentence authorized for the predicate crime if it is a felony. A person could not be convicted of both the predicate crime and the “bias-motivated” crime (prosecutors would have to choose one or the other).

The questions remain: Is a crime motivated by “bias” (as described above) really more severe in its impact on victim and society and so deserving of extra punishment? If so, why and how? Supporters of this outrageous legislation have yet to answer those key questions.

Without coherent, concrete answers to those questions, this is just more emotion-based, feel-good, politically “correct” legislation of the sort that has led to the deplorable growth in Michigan prison population over the years. It should be rejected by the Senate.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

albaby2 — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:37:36 GMT

Obama's new Supreme Court candidates remarks leave no question about his, and her, respect for the Constitution and it's deliniating the responsiblities of the different branches of Government. It was verified by her comment that the "appeals court is where policy is made". IOW it goes right along with liberals desire for a "living Constitution" that can be modified by Judicial fiat to suit the whims of the moment (and the party in power). The snickering of the members in attendance in the press conference when she admitted she shouldn't be saying that leaves no doubt of the intention of the liberals, and the liberals disdain for the Constitution.

No doubt she will be approved as the Dems will probably be joined by Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and John McCain-who will be anxious to reach across the aisle.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4836 (Create “bias-motivated” crime )

gypsy — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:20:52 GMT

Upholding the US Constitution doesn't mean you ignore man's history. Our Constitution was based on laws dating back to the Magna Carta, and ideology and governments dating back to Rome and Greece. Who said anything about the UN charter, or upholding foreign laws? Me thinks you may be a wee bit excitable. A good judge will know and respect not only the law as it is written, but why it was written, and how it relates to the circumstances brought before the court. The United States is still a young country, and has much to learn from the successes and failures of nations throughout history.

A Supreme Court judge must interpret the Constitution to apply it to cases brought before it, cases that would not have been known of, nor possible, when the Constitution was written. To have a knowledge of how and why laws were created is essential to this task.

Is it against the 1st Amendment to allow a religious display on public property? There is no "fundamental" yes or no to that question in the 1st Amendment. Justices need to interpret what the founders were trying to accomplish in writing the 1st Amendment, and then apply it fairly to the particular circumstances of the case. A knowledge of the history of religion in governments would serve them well.

It's easy to say all a Supreme Court Justice has to do is "uphold" the Constitution, but there is much more to it than that.