Forever In Prison

AMENDMENT 7: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT 11: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision that effects the rights of all citizens and the voice of reason is coming from Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, you know something is seriously wrong.

In what can only be seen as yet another mistake by cowardly judges who are scared of being seen as pro-child molestation, the court passed down a 7-2 decision that says that a person that has been convicted of "sexually violent conduct" can be held past their sentence that was handed down by the court, possibly indefinitely.

I know that a lot of people will latch on to the group of people that the decision targets and applaud the court. But just stop and think about what they are saying. They are saying that a person that has served their time can be held indefinitely for no reason, other than they are deemed 'dangerous'. Who decides what is dangerous behavior? What are the guidelines for how this will be executed?

If you don't think this is a problem, look at the War On Terror™. You have a broad war on some ethereal idea. Then you broaden the definition of what a terrorist is (someone who commits an act of terror) to drug dealers, drug users, and now a 14-year old autistic boy who drew a stick figure of him killing someone.

We all know that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy in the world of logic. However, this is politics we are talking about. Logic doesn't enter into the equation. When this broad, and obviously overreaching, power is given to a small group, it will always be abused and it will always be broadened to the largest group possible.

I have a feeling that those constitutional purists that form the Tea Party will be sure to protest the hell out of this decision. I eagerly await the outrage.

Discriminate If You Like, It Let's Me Know Who The Bigots Are

The Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case this week, Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, that has some pretty hefty implications for college groups across the nation. The Christian Legal Society is arguing that the policy of non-discrimination when it comes to admitting groups on the University of California, Hastings College Of The Law campus is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow the groups to bar people from joining them based on religious or sexual orientation reasons.

Who would have thought that it would have been a Christian group that wanted to discriminate against gays and atheists? I mean, it isn't like religion has a long history of openness and acceptance. But I digress.

In this particular case, as much as it pains me to say, I have to agree with the Christian group. The implications of this case reach a little further, a lot further, than just not discriminating against someone who wants to join your club. For example, if there was an atheist group that was not allowed to discriminate against religious people, a christian group could effectively pile the group with Christians, take all of the officer positions, and shut the group down. Easy peasy.

The sticking point is going to be that a group that operates on the campus actually receives funding from the state university system.

Official recognition brings the right to use the Hastings name and logo, access to an e-mail address with a link to the law school's network, office space and meeting rooms, and small grants from student-activity fees and university funds.

That is where you have to draw the line, for religious, atheist, gay, or white-supremacists groups. You shouldn't stop anyone from forming a group. Ever. But, if the group is based on something that does not correlate to education at the school, then there should be no help at all from the university system. This is not to say that you couldn't have a "LGBT Rights" group on the campus of Hastings that received funding from the state. That is an issue that attracts straight people and the LGBT community alike. There could also be a "Religious Freedom" group that received benefits. However, when you have a specifically Christian or Muslim or Jewish or, yes, Atheist group, then there should be no funding from the state system.

Besides, having the Christian group take a stand like this is fantastic. I love it when I can easily pick out a group of bigoted idiots.

Saturday Mixed Bag

Hello heathens! Here's a few items to get you started on this beautiful weekend.

This is brilliant. Tea Party Jesus is a tumblr user who has taken quotes from various douchebag talking heads as well as regular nutjob teabaggers and put them into pictures so that Jesus is speaking them-----kinda puts all that self-satisfied handwringing into perspective. http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

In other news, Fred Phelps is still a detestable assbag, and this week he and his church protested the funerals of the miners who died in West Virginia, because of course they were just big sinny queers and God smote them and such. http://gawker.com/5513598/westboro-baptist-church-says-god-was-punishing-killed-miners This is pretty low, but in my opinion not as low as protesting soldier's funerals, but still.

Also, this lady from National Review Online thinks we should yell at politicians in public, particularly on airplanes: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmYwOGZlNGU4YzVlMjE5NmJhMmFlNTY5MDhjZGZiNDg

Justice John Paul Stevens will retire soon. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/justice-stevens-will-retire-this-summer.php?ref=fpb Obama better not fuck this up. Seriously. And what the fuck are conservatives still screaming about "activist judges" for? That's an empty term, a blatant disguise for "anyone who makes decisions we don't like." Anyway, don't fuck this up, man! SERIOUSLY.

And lastly, I'll leave you with this http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/a-republican-party-highlights-from-the-southern-republican-leadership-conference.php?ref=mp , TPM's coverage of the first few days of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Of course there is a combo of insanely funny (guy confusing "mediocre" with "meteoric" when describing Sarah Palin's rise to fame) to really sad (Palin blasting Obama for his supposedly non-existent nuclear strategy. Because we all know hers, right?). Enjoy!