Do people in your boondocks indulge in cross-burnings?
Emotions Run High in Cross-Burning Debate
Wed Dec 11, 9:37 PM ET
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Normally stoic and silent during arguments, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas found his voice Wednesday, condemning cross burning as a symbol of oppression during "100 years of lynching" in the South by the Ku Klux Klan.
The subject also evoked strong emotions from his white colleagues, who joined in expressing concern about violence and racism during arguments in the second cross-burning case to reach the Supreme Court in a decade.
Justices are considering how far states may go to discourage the Klan and others from burning crosses, a provocative practice rooted in racial hatred but still given some free-speech protections. At issue is the constitutionality of a 50-year-old Virginia law that bans cross burning.
The arguments produced an unusually candid look at the justices, particularly Thomas, who generally speaks only once or twice a year during arguments and refuses to give interviews.
"This was a reign of terror, and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. Isn't that significantly greater than intimidation or a threat?" Thomas, the second black to serve on the court, asked a Bush administration lawyer who supported the law.
The Supreme Court historically has been protective of First Amendment rights of the most controversial of groups, including burners of the American flag, adult entertainers and even cross burners.
Michael Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general defending the Virginia law, said crosses have been used to intimidate minorities and that more than a dozen states have laws punishing the crime.
Thomas, who was raised in segregated Georgia, said burning crosses were "intended to cause fear and terrorize a population."
`We had almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South by the Knights of Camellia and the Ku Klux Klan," Thomas said.
The last time Thomas spoke so extensively during an argument was 1995, his fourth year on the Supreme Court, in another case involving a KKK cross display. The Klan won in a 7-2 ruling, joined by Thomas.
During Wednesday's argument, the justices repeatedly interrupted the lawyers and sometimes talked over each other.
"The cross has acquired a potency that is at least equal to that of a gun," Justice David H. Souter observed.
Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative member of the court, said blacks would prefer to see a rifle-toting man in their front yard rather than a burning cross.
Rodney Smolla, a lawyer representing three people convicted in separate cases under the Virginia law, said the practice may be evil and disgusting, but it is protected by the Constitution.
[snip]
story.news.yahoo.com
"...the practice may be evil and disgusting, but it is protected by the Constitution." Now, that's a thought-provoking tag line, isn't it? I mean, what's the worth of a "Constitution" that condones evil and disgusting practices, that suffers evil and disgusting behaviors, that panders to evil and disgusting people?
Gus |
