Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (144720)	9/20/2010 9:07:58 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542946

"It is also true that interpretations have changed over the years and that in times of extreme pressure the court has yielded to the hysteria of the moment, rather than followed the constitution." The hysteria of the moment is much more likely to be anti-muslim than pro muslim- and is, in fact, typified by targeting a specific religious group, rather than by allowing people to practice their religions. Now- as to Sharia courts existing outside the context of state law. Well of course that can happen- just as people submit to Jewish law in their private lives, or Catholic law. In this country we allow people to have private religious lives- even if they are whacky scientologists, or believe in the angel Moroni and golden tablets found in America, or Ganesh, or Shiva, or Wicca. If you want to be bound by your own religious "laws" and you privately do that, the state does not stop you- unless you violate very specific and narrow public policy areas. We are always allowed to violate the free exercise clause when we have a very very good reason to do so, but the court will give such interference in private religious life strict scrutiny. Which is why, unless we changed the constitution, I do not think you could even have a law outlawing Sharia courts. Such a law would not stand up to strict scrutiny- unless you had a court composed of the kind of bigots who sent the Japanese to jail, and you don't have enough Alitos on the court for that... I'm not sure why Gingrich is so worried about Sharia law privately being practiced by Muslims. If we set the precedent for interfering in private religious lives of our citizens because we fear them, rather than because there is a rational reason to interfere (and a very very good reason at that), we set a precedent that applies to all religions- not just the one that hysterics of the moment have chosen to fixate on. You realize your examples, Dredd Scott, and Korematsu, are actually examples of the extreme prejudice that sometimes gets tangled up in to con law. The mistakes we have made in America have not generally involved tolerance- they have involved incorporating (due to the hysteria of the moment) extreme bigotry into our constitution. Where America has, at times, failed- it has failed to live up to truly and equally protecting its citizens. So the precedents you cite actually cut against you. Can you see that? And Roe v Wade, while not in the constitution (imo), actually follows its spirit (imo). Imagine if our founding fathers could have gotten pregnant. Do you think they would have liked to be forced to carry babies to term? I think not. These were elite, educated wealthy white men who pretty much wanted to do as they pleased. They didn't, for the most part, by in to religious orthodoxy any more than they bought in to political orthodoxy. I would not have argued Roe V Wade the way it was argued. I find no right of privacy in the constitution. I don't even find any basis for the travel cases- which helped advance the freedom of blacks in this country- but I generally like both sets of cases- though they do not involve religion- an area where the courts have been rather loathe to create anything that looks like "new" law. I guess if you see Roe and the Travel cases as "errors" you might think- what? That the courts would somehow allow Sharia to exist outside some narrowly defined private existence? I'm not clear on your existential fear, why it is rational, and what you think it leads to, and why you think it is safe to interfere in private religious life in such a meddlesome way. It was NOT Justice Stevens who said what you think about the Koran, it was Breyer, and he didn't say it because the Koran is a Very Special Book- he said it because of the public policy exception to free speach- analogizing that burning the Koran was somehow like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. There are exceptions to the free speech clause and inciting violence is one of those exceptions. blogs.abcnews.com As I think this is a good exception to have, I don't mind that Breyer wants to intellectually explore that. I don't come out at the same place as Breyer- but I can understand his reasoning, and since I'm not an hysteric, it doesn't particularly upset me. And I'm not sure why you'd be "surprised" a government would kill millions of its citizens for being Jewish. Ethnic cleansing and religious hatred are seen all the time, all over the world. Actually, that too is a precedent that cuts against you.

To: Little Joe who wrote (144720)	9/20/2010 11:03:44 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

Joe, a bit of advice on how to structure an argument. This particular post is simply a series of very large unsupported generalizations rather than evidence in support of an argument. You might wish to follow this thread for a while to see how arguments are made; or read about it somewhere else. That post would get less than a failing grade in any first year class in any college in the country. Not because of the position you've taken, nor because of the sprinkling of constitutional law you know, but because it's not an argument. Just unsubstantiated assertions.

To: Little Joe who wrote (144720)	9/20/2010 2:02:46 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542946

>>Well first lets put this discussion in context. I believe Gingrich was talking about separate Shariah Courts for Muslims, along the lines of the Brits. Not a takeover of the courts by Muslims to administer Shariah to all of us.<< If you read what he actually said, it's clear that isn't at all what he meant. He referred to "officers of the court" using Sharia law to decide cases. And once again, there's a difference between civil and criminal courts. There is nothing in present US law to prevent people from adjudicating civil disputes in whatever forum they prefer, nor should there be a law against that. If I were having a child custody dispute, say, I could choose to have the matter decided by a priest, a minister, a rabbi, and imam, or Bozo the Clown, if that's what I wanted to do. That would be my right as an American. As long as Bozo's decision did not commit anyone to something that is illegal under our nation's laws, it would be fine.