Froth Slosh B'Gosh

Chipping Away At The Constitution

The Supreme Court, along the usual pro-state/anti-citizen 6-3 split, erodes the double jeopardy provision. 

The 6-3 decision holds that a jury's unanimous but tentative vote to acquit a defendant on some charges does not count as a verdict.

It came in the case of an Arkansas man who in 2009 was tried for murder and manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend's 1-year-old baby. The jury voted unanimously against the murder charge, but the foreman said they were "hopelessly deadlocked" on whether he was guilty of manslaughter. The judge declared a mistrial.

Note that the defense was not arguing that the defendant could not be retried on the charges the jury failed to agree on, but the radical Roberts court declared he can be retried on all charges, even the one the jury aquitted him of!  Outrageous!

The conservative majority of this court are not sober jurists.  They are radical fanatics, determined to do whatever they can to limit the protections offered by the Constitution to those who lack power or access to those who weild it. 

Adventures In Voting

SO I was asked for a photo ID at the polls yesterday. On principle, I refused. I was handed a notice stating that I would be required to show a photo ID in November, and it listed the acceptable forms of ID. Interestingly, my government issued voter ID card isn't acceptable (no photo). What I also found interesting was that I could refuse to show photo ID and still be able to cast a provisional ballot. I'd then have to go to the elections office at the county courthouse within six days and show one of the approved forms of ID, or affirm that I am who I say I am in order to have my ballot counted. Say what?? Affirm?? What exactly does that mean? Lets go to Dictionary.com:
af·firm
   [uh-furm] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1.
to state or assert positively; maintain as true: to affirm one's loyalty to one's country; He affirmed that all was well.

2.
to confirm or ratify: The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

3.
to assert solemnly: He affirmed his innocence.

4.
to express agreement with or commitment to; uphold; support: to affirm human rights.

verb (used without object)
5.
Law .
a.
to state something solemnly before a court or magistrate, but without oath.

b.
to ratify and accept a voidable transaction.

c.
(of an appellate court) to determine that the action of the lower court shall stand.

Oh my! No photo ID required! Now isn't affirming our identity what we've been doing all along when we sign the voter card at the polls? Why is it necessary to make this affirmation at the courthouse before a bureaucrat who likely doesn't know me, but I can't make this affirmation at the polls, where all the poll workers know me? What is this law supposed to prevent anyway? The only thing I can't think of is to prevent someone from impersonating another at the polls, a situation that rarely, if ever, happens. SO, other than throwing a roadblock before people who don't have the appropriate ID, what, exactly, is the point?

A Pretty Clear Violation

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a Ten Commandments monument in Westmoreland County in its sights.  The monument sits on the grounds of New Kensington-Arnold School District's Vally Highschool.

A Wisconsin-based atheist group wants officials to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the front of a New Kensington high school, claiming the display amounts to an "egregious" violation of the separation between church and state.

Freedom From Religion Foundation sent New Kensington-Arnold School District officials a letter this week asking them to remove the stone monument, which the New Kensington Eagles gave to the district more than a decade ago. It sits near the entrance to Valley High School's gymnasium.

The law is pretty clear on this issue (just ask the folks in Cranston, R.I.)  If the FFRF has to sue, there's a very high probability that the school district will lose.  The legal fees the district will pay out in what's likely a futile defense could better be used on books, salaries, and maintenance. 

If I'm a member of the New Kensington-Arnold School District, I'd be looking for someone willing to host the monument on private, rather than public property.  The grounds of one of the many churches in the region would be a good spot.

 

No One Could Have Predicted....

That "Stand Your Ground" laws would lead the killing of dangerous blackity black teenagers who insist on being black while armed with Skittles.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.

Tony Norman weighs in:

Mr. Zimmerman is not a cop. He had no legal right to question a law-abiding citizen based on his suspicions. Unless the legal standard now is that black youth have to show fearful deference to random strangers who stop them on streets they have a legal right to be, then Mr. Zimmerman's actions weren't justified.

There's something wrong with a state law that makes it possible to shoot a citizen who has not committed a crime simply because the shooter feels threatened. All sorts of murderous mischief would be possible if the only threshold for killing is fear.

Regardless how the Brevard Seminole state attorney's office rules, all "stand your ground" laws should be reviewed by the Justice Department. In Pennsylvania, we have a similar law on the books called the Castle Doctrine. It has already resulted in one bizarre love triangle killing: a betrayed husband shot his wife's lover in the heart with a bow and arrow. There's always a thin line between fear and opportunism.

This isn't an isolated case either. 

 the number of justifiable homicides has significantly increased since the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

From 2000 to 2005, an average of 13 killings by private citizens were deemed justified each year. Between 2006 and 2010 that average increased to 36 killings per year. The highest was in 2009 at 45.

Duty to retreat if practical, was a reasonable standard.  We need to bring that standard back.

What Does This Acutally Accomplish Again?

So, Pennsylvania now has a voter ID law.  Why?  What does this law prevent?  How many cases of voter fraud are there?  The only type of fraud this would prevent is someone trying to vote under another person's name, and how many times has that happened?  In his column today, Tony Norman notes that there have been just four, count 'em, four cases of voter fraud litigated over the past 4 years, and I bet none of those cases involve someone trying to impersonate another voter.

I've been voting in the same ward for some 15 years.  The poll workers know me, my wife, and our daughter.  If someone tried to go there and pretend they were me, they'd be caught right away.

Just imagine how difficult it is to pull off this kind of fraud.  First, you have to decide its worth risking prison to illegaly cast a vote.  Then you have to figure out who you intend to impersonate, find out what polling place their registered at, show up, hope that no one recognizes that you're not who you say you are, and show up before the actual voter you're impersonating does. 

When actual fraud occurs, its usually along the lines of registration fraud, typically someone ineligible to vote trying to register, and perhaps succeeding.  And let us say that this sometimes happens.  For example, a legal alien improperly registers to vote.  Now, how will this "voter ID" law prevent that person from casting a ballot?  It doesn't. 

This law isn't about protecting against fraud.  Its about, as the P-G correctly notes, trying to throw barriers in the way of people who are most likely to cast a ballot for a Democrat.

Prison For Mining Criminal

Good.

A former US mine chief who lied to investigators about one of the worst mining tragedies in decades has been sentenced to three years in prison.

Hughie Elbert Stover was in charge of the Upper Big Branch mine, where 29 men died after an explosion in April 2010.

He could have gotten a quarter of a century, so three years is really on the l;ight side, but its a start towards holding the people running businesses accountable for their actions.  Now if we could only do the same with some bankers.

Paging Mr. Dickens, Mr. Charles Dickens....

Just when I think things can't get any more looney, along comes the New Hampshire GOP.  Now they want to eliminate lunch breaks.

Institutionalized Evil

Its worth remembering that while the Catholic Church is freaking out about having to cover contraception in prescription drug plans, Church leaders turned a blind eye towards rape allegations against clergy.  The latest from Wisconsin:

The bankruptcy hearings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee have revealed more than 8,000 previously unreported instances of alleged sexual abuse of children, according to one attorney representing the victims. The charges cover a span of 60 years and implicate a group of 100 alleged offenders, including nuns, church workers and some 75 priests.

That works out to over 130 allegations per year on average.  Can't we go after this criminal organization with the RICO laws?

English Only?

So, proficiency in English is now a legal requirement to hold elective office in Arizona?

Judge John Nelson of the Yuma County Superior Court ruled late Wednesday night that Ms. Cabrera be struck from the ballot because she did not know enough English to do the job. In removing Ms. Cabrera, Judge Nelson agreed with the recommendation of a linguist who had conducted tests of Ms. Cabrera and found her English skills lacking.

I'd agree that an inability to speak English could be a liability for an elected official, but isn't that an issue for the voters, not the courts to decide so long as the candidate otherwise meets the qualifications for the office? 

Its All In How You Write The Headline

Today's Trib:

High court fails to act in off-campus speech cases

No, the Supreme Court didn't fail to act.  They acted quite decisivly in allowing the rulings of the lower courts to stand, in effect saying, "This does not merit our attention."  A better headline would be "Court refuses to hear School Districts' Appeals In Off-Campus Speech Cases."