Disqus - Latest Comments for colindcrowe

Re: On Stolen Valor and Sinister Judges

colindcrowe — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:23:49 -0000

If lying weren't protected speech, how would this website even be in existence!?

Re: Is Tancredo a Racist or Are His Critics More Stupid Than We Thought?

colindcrowe — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:25:28 -0000

One can be for strong borders and reduced immigration without being a xenophobe or a racist, but don't defend Tancredo. Just don't. I disagree with what you write a great deal, but often you make an excellent argument. That is not the case here. Tancredo is a racist scumbag. I don't think that these comments prove him a racist, but his words and actions for the past two decades sure do. Check out his activities with the YWC.

Re: Colombian Governor Bans Christmas, Jails Christians

colindcrowe — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:31:24 -0000

Proofread much?

Re: Huckabee Still Dodging Responsibility for Maurice Clemmons

colindcrowe — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:37:34 -0000

I agree with your concerns re: Huckabee. I'd redirect the blame from judges to legislators and the correctional system. The judge in this case, as in many others, handed down a sentence commensurate with the initial crime. When one can be paroled (obviously not on point in the instant) after serving a mere fraction of the sentence given, the system is broken. And legislators content to draft statutes that permit similar (or even shorter) sentences for violent crimes than for non-violent drug crimes are to blame too.

The dangerous folks should remain behind bars. No matter what. Whether we decide to fill up the jails with drug addicts and other non-violent criminals or not, violent criminals must remain behind bars.

Re: Like racism, hate crimes usually apply to only one side

colindcrowe — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:46:35 -0000

You wrote "why the perpetrator assaulted them is irrelevant." This is simply untrue. For virtually all crimes (save statutory rape and speeding, for example), the criminal code of the state in question will require that prosecution prove the defendant's mental state.

So, if the perp committed the crime purposefully rather than through mere negligence, he is more culpable. The same logic, whether you agree with it or not, applies to hate crime legislation. One may be more culpable where his mental state involves hate toward another based on membership in a group.

The article itself is based on a false premise. Any hate crime legislation that singled out specific groups for protection would be facially unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

Hate crime laws may also be APPLIED unconstitutionally, which may be the case here. Since dozens of black males were arrested in the instant, that doesn't seem to be the case in Denver. The cops, of course, were "building the case" in preparation for the arrest. ;-)

Re: Congress to Consider Pro-Homosexual Bill After Recess

colindcrowe — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:28:10 -0000

This is NOT true. The NJ case is, at best, improperly cited. The entire article is hyperbole, because 1) the 1964 Act is not re: employer / employee relationships and 2) the Court has held that religious orgs cannot be required to hire those outside their chosen faith.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:18:16 -0000

*touches his finger to his nose*

Yes, indoctrination is best left for parents.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:38:39 -0000

Problem is...we haven't had compulsory public education in any state, let alone all fifty states, for anywhere near 200 years.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:36:58 -0000

No, Rehnquist is the one in contradiction to the current analysis of the Constitution. It really is this simple. Claiming that your analysis is correct, especially given that virtually all Supremes' decisions on the matter go the other way, using a different analysis --, doesn't magically make you right.

You're certainly free to argue that you position is correct, but the Court gets to decide these borderline cases, not you.

Sry if this is double post, Bob. If a duplicate, please eliminate.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:57:31 -0000

This is Rehnquist in dissent -- not the law.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:53:26 -0000

"Teachers and students prayed--and even read the Bible--in public schools for nearly 200 years of our history."

This statement is false.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:51:18 -0000

Supremes' jurisprudence re: 1st Amend of US Constitution = law that lower courts are required to follow when they determine whether an injunction is appropriate in an Establishment Clause case.

God /Santa / the Easter Bunny can honored by one's own blessing over his food, right? Wouldn't that have been the smart thing to do here, at least until the suit played out?

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:51:13 -0000

I don't even disagree with most of your logic. When a court orders one not to do something, though, based upon the Supremes' past (though perhaps wrongly decided) jurisprudence, don't you think he probably shouldn't do it?

Wouldn't not following injunctions just let folks do whatever they want to, just because they FELT like the Constitution let them do it?

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:34:07 -0000

No, Bob. That a judge's injunction be followed, pending the outcome of the Constitutional issues, is very important. This area of the Court's jurisprudence is not necessarily clear, and given that it's not clear, these folks had no right to violate the injunction.

If the injunction, for example, required that the principal LEAD his student body in prayer, he could rightfully violate it, because such an injunction would be on face unconstitutional, since the Court has decided that the Establishment Cluase would be violated by such an injunction.

Re: School Officials Fighting ‘Ridiculous’ Criminal Charges for Praying

colindcrowe — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:28:28 -0000

These folks don't face criminal contempt charges for praying in school. They face criminal contempt charges because they willfully violated the court's temporary injunction. Not smart.

Re: IRS Backs Off Investigation of Pastor Who Advised ‘No’ Vote on Obama

colindcrowe — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:05:27 -0000

This is nonsense. ANY endorsement of -- or direction not to vote for -- ANY particular candidate at ANY church function by ANY pastor is a violation of the Johnson Amendment. There is NO other way to read the language of the Amendment.