#fucktheviolence
~~~
I done did that already..... I ain't do'in that no more
"The way I look at it, it's freedom of speech...I don't know how other people will take it."
"That's my buddy. He don't talk. Don't make no smart comments. If I had a dollar for everyone who stopped and took a picture of it I'd be a millionaire."
"We don't have black people in this community but I'm sure they travel this road like everybody else does. They could be offended. I don't agree with it."
The 5-4 Supreme Court case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia has been cited by those arguing that the government may not impose viewpoint-based restrictions by revoking the tax-exempt status of the Westboro Baptist Church. The case involved the University’s refusal to use the Student Activities Fund (SAF) to pay for a Christian student newspaper, Wide Awake. The University argued that an SAF Guideline prohibited funds going to an activity that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality.” The District Court ruled for the University, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed saying that there is a “presumptive violation of the Speech Clause when viewpoint discrimination was invoked to deny third party payment otherwise available.”
The Court held that “[t]he Guideline invoked to deny SAF support, both in its terms and in its application to these petitioners, is a denial of their right of free speech.” J. O’Connor, wrote in her concurrence, that “[w}hen two bedrock principles so conflict, understandably neither can provide the definitive answer.”
The first danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to examine publications to determine whether or not they are based on some ultimate idea and if so for the State to classify them. The second, and corollary, danger is to speech from the chilling of individual thought and expression.
Using public funds for the direct subsidization of preaching the word is categorically forbidden under the Establishment Clause, and if the Clause was meant to accomplish nothing else, it was meant to bar this use of public money.
Who does not see that . . . the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Madison noted that the bill “violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law.”
as one element of a permissibly attenuated benefit is, of course, a far cry from evenhandedness as a sufficient condition of constitutionality for direct financial support of religious proselytization, and our cases have unsurprisingly repudiated any such attempt to cut the Establishment Clause down to a mere prohibition against unequal direct aid.The direct financial aid found in Rosenberger is different from the indirect aid found with tax-exempt entities such as the Westboro Baptist Church. J. Souter’s compelling arguments against direct aid wouldn’t see to apply to the indirect financial aid we find in tax exemption.
“My family and I took a view and we’re sticking by it,” Morris said Tuesday, adding that his daughters were joining an alternative group for young girls run by conservative Christians. “My girls are no longer Girl Scouts. They’re now going to join American Heritage Girls.”
Morris’ comments were the butt of jokes inside the House on Tuesday, with Bosma spending much of the day handing out Thin Mints to lawmakers. He joked that Morris’ comments led him to buy hundreds of cases of the famous Girl Scout cookies.
Hiding the Ball - The Morton case in Williamson Countyby: Edward GarrisMon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:10 AM CST |
In recent years DNA evidence has made painfully clear the extent of wrongful convictions meted out by the criminal justice system with a corresponding number of innocent parties wrongfully imprisoned. This disturbing trend hit close to home recently in the case of Michael Morton. On October 4, Morton was released from prison after serving 25 years for the 1986 murder of his wife; he was convicted in 1987 in Williamson County [Texas] and finally exonerated of the crime with DNA evidence this year. The incarceration of an innocent man for a quarter of a century would be sufficiently troubling. Even more disconcerting would be learning that the prosecution put that innocent man behind bars, knowing or likely knowing that he was innocent and hiding evidence that would clear his name simply to secure a conviction. The Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability (TCLA) has come forward and allegedly exactly that. |
On November 28, the TCLA filed three grievances with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, complaining of Ken Anderson, Mike Davis, and John Bradley. Anderson was the District Attorney for Williamson County, Texas, in 1987, and prosecuted Morton for the murder of his wife. In 1987, according to the grievance, Davis was the chief Williamson County Assistant District Attorney, and assisted Anderson in the prosecution of Morton. Bradley is the current Williamson County District Attorney, and the grievance cited his "suppression of evidence and the cover up of illegal and unethical conduct by the prosecutors who tried the case." In short, Bradley was joined as a respondent for attempting to block the DNA evidence that was brought forward and ultimately used to free Morton. The grievance cites four pieces of evidence which were recently found in files in Williamson County and which would have been critical to Morton's defense but which were withheld. As set out in the grievances, they are: "A typewritten memo to the lead investigator of the murder disclosing a telephone tip that a $20 check that had been made out to the victim was cashed nine days after the murder; A handwritten telephone message to the lead investigator disclosing that the victim's Visa card had apparently been recovered at a San Antonio store after the murder; A sheriff's deputy report, written one day after the murder, stating that a neighbor described seeing a man park a green van on the street behind the house where the victim was murdered on several occasions; A transcribed tape recording in which the victim's mother tells the lead investigator that the victim's child (who was at the house when the murder occurred) stated that Mr. Morton was not at the murder scene when the murder occurred." The grievances also noted two other concerns: the discrepancy between the trial testimony of the medical examiner and Anderson's representation of that testimony during closing arguments; and the fact that Anderson was ordered to produce the entire four-inch thick lead investigator's report, but produced only a five page report. The grievances cite the violation of eleven rules of professional conduct by Anderson and Davis, and ten by Bradley. In all three instances, they seek disbarment of the three attorneys for undermining "the integrity and fairness of our state's criminal justice system" and destroying "the life, liberty, and happiness of an innocent man" and "to partially counterbalance the grievous wrongs they have inflicted, the unspeakable injustice and undeserved punishments they have imposed and maintained against Mr. Morton, and the severe damage they have caused to the criminal justice system in Texas." Anderson was deposed on October 31. The transcript of his testimony can be seen here. Copies of the grievances can be viewed here. |
I don't like Nancy Grace. In fact, let's be honest, I find her utterly loathsome. In the name of ratings, she rushes to prejudge every case (and always on the side of the prosecution), she blatantly takes sides, she's an abusive interviewer, she's intellectually dishonest, and she's a coward.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy