Mailvox: because it’s not irrelevant

JJ sees a blameless Bush:

Five members of the current Supreme Court are terrible (sometimes six, if O’Connor is included in many key decisions) and I agree with much of what you said in “Great Leap Backward.” But I see no reason why you had to bring up White House policy on democracy in the Middle East as part of that discussion. Only Congress has the power to do anything about Judges who are behaving badly.

The White House supports greater individual property rights and it had nothing to do with the bad recent Supreme Court decisions (which also include Lingle v. Chevron and San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco). The Bush administration supported property rights by nominating Janice Rogers Brown and insisting that she be confirmed for the D.C. Court of Appeals. WAM- Rent Board Stories #118 June 2005

It is safe to say that those who support individual rights in America are more likely to support those rights in the Middle East than those who are of a collectivist mindset who support “liberal” judges. So what sense does it make to have a discussion that objects to courts not protecting individual property rights while making an irrelevant collateral attack on an administration that is on the right side of that issue?

First, the administration is certainly not on the right side of the issue. Bush’s spokesman told the American people to respect the Supreme Court’s decision, he did not announce that the court had committed an outrage and he would encourage the Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the five judicial criminals.

Second, the corrosion of freedom in America puts the lie to the administration’s oft-trumpeted notion of bringing freedom elsewhere. There is absolutely no point in wasting time, blood and money in any attempts to expand freedom in other countries while allowing it to be methodically destroyed at home.

No respect for the Law

From WND:

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today to not allow display of the Ten Commandments at two government facilities. It was the first ruling on the issue since the court ruled 25 years ago that the Commandments could not be displayed in public schools.

At issue was the constitutionality of a granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol and framed copies of commandments in two Kentucky courthouses. The decision affects every Ten Commandments display in the country and could set the future course for other governmental acknowledgments of religion.

This should finally put to rest the notion that the nation is specially blessed by God. The government, in the form of the court, is intentionally turning its back on its own moral foundations. This is, of course, ironic, given the court’s own Moses the Lawgiver display.

I don’t put much stock in this sort of display myself, but I do in the effort to ban such displays. The Supreme Court is challenging God, placing its so-called law above God’s Law. As per de Tocqueville’s formulation, America is no longer good and she will soon cease to be great.

UPDATE – and once again, it is demonstrated that you cannot expect the police to defend you and your family. In this case, the Supreme Court made the right decision, but it’s important in that it helps those who believe in the concept of “police protection” to understand that there is no such animal.

Discuss amongst yourselves

Mailvox: a swing and a miss

This kind of “mob” mentality leads to mob “justice” and that’s not where we really want to go, if you think about it. Besides, do courts and juries ever get it wrong? Yep, you bet.

I remember watching the case (on A&E) of this black man, Ronald Cotton, of Burlington, NC who was arrested of raping this white girl in 1984 and was tried and convicted of it in early ’85. He kept saying he didn’t do it and claimed the girl had it wrong, but she pointed him out specifically.

The significant difference, of course, is that Cotton denied committing the crime. The late and unlamented Spanish Torch admitted it without expressing any remorse for it.

When the king fails to provide justice, people will seek it on their own. Thus has it always been, thus will it always be.

Fiery justice

From WND:

A Spanish mother has taken revenge on the man who raped her 13-year-old daughter at knifepoint by dousing him in petrol and setting him alight. He died of his injuries in hospital on Friday.

Antonio Cosme Velasco Soriano, 69, had been sent to jail for nine years in 1998, but was let out on a three-day pass and returned to his home town of Benej├║zar, 30 miles south of Alicante, on the Costa Blanca.

While there, he passed his victim’s mother in the street and allegedly taunted her about the attack. He is said to have called out “How’s your daughter?”, before heading into a crowded bar. Shortly after, the woman walked into the bar, poured a bottle of petrol over Soriano and lit a match. She watched as the flames engulfed him, before walking out.

The woman fled to Alicante, where she was arrested the same evening. When she appeared in court the next day in the town of Orihuela, she was cheered and clapped by a crowd, who shouted “Bravo!” and “Well done!”

I suspect that we may see more of this in the future, as a Wave Three mentality takes hold and the courts continue to abdicate their role of attempting to provide justice in society in favor of working hand-in-hand with the politicians to expand central government power in every Western country.

As for the vengeful mother, she should be tried, found guilty and given a suspended sentence. I highly doubt that she’s crazy or that she’s any danger to society.

Perhaps it’s wrong, but I find it amusing to think how the look on the gloating rapist’s face must have changed at the moment he realized what his victim’s mother was doing.

How quickly they forget

From ESPN:

Perhaps even more amazing was the sight of two teens in pink shirts and ponytails — 15-year-old Michelle Wie and 17-year-old Morgan Pressel — grabbing a three-way share of the lead and standing 18 holes away from a chance to become the youngest major champion in golf history.

I find it amusing that sportswriters, the very people you’d expect to know the most about sports, still get excited about teenage girls competing effectively against older women. They inevitably predict decades of dominance, which never happens because women peak athletically much more quickly than men.

I ran track in high school and college, and I can’t recall a single year that there wasn’t an eighth or ninth-grader turning in excellent times in the 100 or 200 meters. But in most cases, by the time they hit their junior or senior year, they were running slower than they had been before. The same process usually holds true in tennis, figure skating and gymnastics, where the female athlete still competing at a high level at 25 is the exception rather than the rule.

Now, it’s true that things may be different in golf, since golf isn’t a sport requiring athletic ability but is a game requiring precision and skill. So, perhaps Wie will become the Jack Nicklaus of women’s golf and dominate it for the next three decades. But I doubt it.

A Zen koan

If a Supreme Court justice’s house burns down in the woods, has any private property been harmed?