Gravitymaster 0 #26 July 20, 2005 QuoteJohn G. Roberts Seems like a good choice. Not insanely conservative and very well qualified. About freedom of choice. I really don’t know. I feel a woman should have the right to choose but lately I am not so sure. You should have the right to choose only when your choice of conceiving or engaging in intercourse was not given. In cases of rape, molestation, incest, or if the form of birth control that was used did not work. It will be very hard to determine the last one. I guess if it were a black or white issue there would not be so much to debate. You are starting to scare me. Are you actually saying you think a woman should make her "choice" before engaging in sexual relations? If so, you are becoming a radical, frothing at the mouth, Right-Wing Nazi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #27 July 20, 2005 i agree with gmaster darius...any more rational thought out of you and we will take you to the city limits and stone your ass to death!! "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 July 20, 2005 The only litmus test a judge should have is whether they execute the intent of law especially when it disagrees with their personal positions. Show me a judge who is personally left wing but will support a right wing law because it's the law, show me a judge who is very right wing but supports Roe because it's the law - then we'll have a real judge. I'd like to see unclear laws sent back to Congress for rewrite - then we have less "interpretation" and more support of the original intent. It's a lifetime appointment because they need to tow the line. If the public disagrees with a law, then they vote for different congressmen, not the judges. I also don't think laws change with time. The original intent is the only thing that matters. If time changes the need of a particular law, then that law should be replaced, by the law making body, not just 'reinterpreted' to present context. The Supreme Court's job is to make sure the lower courts don't abuse their job of 'interpreting' the law to a personal agenda. It's a shame we don't pick and affirm judges based on judicial ability - rather it seems on which way they swing. Edit: waiting on more info about this candidate ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #29 July 20, 2005 Quotei agree with gmaster darius...any more rational thought out of you and we will take you to the city limits and stone your ass to death!! At least have the courtesy to use a lethal injectionI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 July 20, 2005 QuoteShow me a judge who is personally left wing but will support a right wing law because it's the law, show me a judge who is very right wing but supports Roe because it's the law - then we'll have a real judge. I think that either of those things would undermine our system of law. Case law evolves. That's how we got Roe. To say that it ought to stop evolving at some arbitrary point seems short sighted. A judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice, has a duty to continue the evolution of the case law. If a judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice, sees a law that he thinks is unconstitutional, he has a duty to rule against it. Judges who just accept what their predecessors have said, or just accept the laws as they have been made without considering constitutional issues? What would be the point of having appellate courts, then?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #31 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteGOPers want Government off your back and out of your life, . the NeoCon's want nothing of the sort... Unfortunately, no one in politics apparently does. Even more unfortunately, I don't think the voters do, either. Libertarians do. www.lp.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #32 July 20, 2005 QuoteJohn G. Roberts Seems like a good choice. Not insanely conservative and very well qualified. About freedom of choice. I really don’t know. I feel a woman should have the right to choose but lately I am not so sure. You should have the right to choose only when your choice of conceiving or engaging in intercourse was not given. In cases of rape, molestation, incest, or if the form of birth control that was used did not work. It will be very hard to determine the last one. I guess if it were a black or white issue there would not be so much to debate. In an ideal world, I agree with you. Choices should be made before sex. However, passing laws like that would just lead people to lie about how they got pregnant if they really wanted to abort. Personally, if I got pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion unless my life was in danger. Period. I'm pro-choice, and that's my choice. However, I'm not going to tell another woman what her choice should be. We all have to make the choices that we can live with, and if I want to control what happens to my own body, I have to support giving others that right as well, even though they might make a different choice than I would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #33 July 20, 2005 How would one decide the "birth control failed" issue? Would it require a signed prescription for birth control pills, or an IUD still in place, or a broken rubber to be brought in as evidence? And when we teach our children (some of whom have sex drives ) that there is no good contraception, only abstinence, whose fault is it then that they don't use effective contraception? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 July 20, 2005 QuoteAnd when we teach our children (some of whom have sex drives ) that there is no good contraception, only abstinence, whose fault is it then that they don't use effective contraception? George Bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #35 July 20, 2005 QuoteHow would one decide the "birth control failed" issue? Would it require a signed prescription for birth control pills, or an IUD still in place, or a broken rubber to be brought in as evidence? And when we teach our children (some of whom have sex drives ) that there is no good contraception, only abstinence, whose fault is it then that they don't use effective contraception? Wendy W. It might help that there were two people involved in the creation. Both of them may not have the same story if its false. Or perhaps the father flat out does may not want his child to be murdered just because the woman thinks its her choice to do so. The truth is this whole choice thing is such a crock. Its the way the arguement is set up to avoid disproving it. You need to call it what it is, its murder. It couldn't be any clearer than when its a later term abortion, you know the partial birth abortions that your hero Clinton vetoed the ban on three times. Where the baby can born that same day if the doctor pulls him/her out. But instead of pulling him/her out, he jams something in there to kill him/her. That is why the pro-choice-to-kill get all upset when people show pictures of the procedure. They then claim that you're trying to get people by their emotions. In fact what your doing is showing the real procedure to the ignorant who think its just a choice. The pro-choice-to-kill people know that the more people learn about the procedure, the more people will be opposed to it.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #36 July 20, 2005 QuoteThe pro-choice-to-kill people know that the more people learn about the procedure, the more people will be opposed to it. Good, well thought argumentation. You've convinced me. Next subject? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteRoe is dead in the water. Welcome to the American Christian Taliban Theocracy. GOPers want Government off your back and out of your life, but apparently it's fine to have government in a woman's uterus. Next up--Mandatory Protestant Prayer in Schools. Free Speech is gone, the slope greased with the inevitable flag burning laws. God help us. We're on our way to Orwell's 1984, albeit 21 years late... Fuck. damn...welcome to drama class. if i had to choose one word to describe that description of a possible future it would be "excessive", even from a liberal standpoint. do you really believe that your free speech is gone? do you really believe that mandatory prayer in school will happen? i assume you were just being overly dramatic. Do the neocons in the US today, envision the end of free speech and the effective end of freedom in the US? Who knows? Do you think German citizens, all caught up in the fervor or nationalism, envisioned the slaughter of millions of undesirables? Like most catastrophic events, the best time for intervention is early in the curve. Once you hit the ground, it's pretty much too late, don't you think? jen You are right. The best time for intervention is early in the curve. This is why a conservative justice is needed. The single greatest assault on free-speech in the past two or three decades occurred a couple of years ago in California. Do me a favor - Google "'Janice Rogers Brown' and 'Aguilar'" The left, including the ACLU, view her as being extremely hostile to Constitutional rights and view her Aguilar dissent as the single greatest example of it. However, if you'll read the Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car decision, http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990810/s054561.htm , and then read her dissent, you'll see that she and Justice Stanley Mosk (highly regarded as the greatest civil libertarian ever in California) agreed that the court's decision was a great blow to freedom of speech. yep, hated neocon Janice Rogers Brown is despised because she stands up for freedom of speech. FYI - that decision by the court that Brown dissented so feverishly was where the court actually approved of BANNING WORDS! Yep, read the decision. The court actually said it's okay to ban racist words, and the lower court actually created a list of words that could not be said or the speaker would go to jail! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT! CENSORSHIP OF SPECIFIC WORDS! And who argued on behalf of it? That's right - an amicus brief by the ACLU! Yep! You heard right. And liberal judges BANNED SPEECH! BANNED IT! And Janice Rogers Brown is so detested because she thinks banning speech is WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL! No matter how bad the speech is (note that she said in her opinion that the speaker of this speech should get his ass sued off for money damages, but that prior restraint of speech is ludicrous). Also, note that the leftist judges okay taking of private lands for commercial uses by governments. Somehow, in the balance of freedoms being taken, aside from the Patriot Act (which has not withsttod challenges very well at all) the neocons seem to be more in favor of preserving them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirage63 0 #38 July 20, 2005 Quote I think our free speech is 'going'. not yet gone - but defnitely going mandatory prayer? You bet, only a matter of time. We are already integrating Christianity with the government at a scale I have not seen in my lifetime. How long do you think it will take to intergrate it with the laws of this country, especially with Christian right-wingers in the supremem court and in the Congress/Senate? Excessive? not at all. Just looking out for YOUR right to choose.... TK, Man I love the way you run Z-hills! I love your x-ray (I watched it happen, sorry it happened but it's a cool x-ray) I love your e-mails to cause they make me laugh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #39 July 20, 2005 QuoteHow would one decide the "birth control failed" issue? Would it require a signed prescription for birth control pills, or an IUD still in place, or a broken rubber to be brought in as evidence? That's exactly why making a law saying that you can only have an abortion if birth control fails, or for rape or incest, is impractical. Sure, if everyone was honest, it'd work fine, but in reality, it would encourage people to lie to get an abortion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 July 20, 2005 QuoteThat's exactly why making a law saying that you can only have an abortion if birth control fails, or for rape or incest, is impractical. Sure, if everyone was honest, it'd work fine, but in reality, it would encourage people to lie to get an abortion. So? OK they lie, big deal people lie all the time. Why would this suddenly be a big deal? It could ALSO make a few people think about using better Contraceptive devices and using them better. And thats a good thing all around."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcarchangel 0 #41 July 20, 2005 I read once that the creation of the Liberatarian Party was one of the worst things that ever happened to the liberatarian movement. It stripped some of the best, or at least most vocal out of the Republican party and put them in a position to be ignored rather than keep them where they had any sort of power. It also put the social conservatives (religious zealots) in the driver's seat in the Republican party.------------------------------------------------------- "These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 July 20, 2005 Oh, yeah. One more thing: The only SCOTUS Justice who wanted to review the Aguilar decision was Clarence Thomas. He wrote: "A theory deeply etched in our law is that a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable." So, it seems a Neocon is the sole voice of protection of free speech rights in that case. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 July 20, 2005 QuoteI think that either of those things would undermine our system of law. Case law evolves. That's how we got Roe. To say that it ought to stop evolving at some arbitrary point seems short sighted. A judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice, has a duty to continue the evolution of the case law. If a judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice, sees a law that he thinks is unconstitutional, he has a duty to rule against it. Judges who just accept what their predecessors have said, or just accept the laws as they have been made without considering constitutional issues? What would be the point of having appellate courts, then? It's not short sighted, but thanks anyway. Your method is the lazy method. Also, your idea that a judges' personal bias should in any way drive his performance is the essence of immorality. I think you are way off, frankly. 1 - I didn't say that law shouldn't evolve. Are you being Billvon by twisting my words? I said the lawmaking body is resonsible for the evolution. 2 - I said nothing about constitutionality. But that a good point. Let me try again: As far as evolution of law with the times - It's not the court's duty, it's the role of the lawmaking body to do what you said. That's Congress. The court should not rewrite law, only support it. If it's outdated, the court should send it to Congress for rework. Now, as far as Constitutionality, that's a very specific role of the Supreme Court only - and one where the three branches are required to balance each other. But ruling against an unconstitutional law means sending it back to Congress to be fixed - again, supporting the higher law over the lower law only - not rewrite or re/mis interpret to their own bias. The Court should not in any way rewrite it themselves, only support the intent of the law as written. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #44 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote The Court should not in any way rewrite it themselves, only support the intent of the law as written. But, but... that would mean politicians would have to make tough decisions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pendejo 0 #45 July 20, 2005 Ok... So I read the ENTIRE link..... I can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote The Court should not in any way rewrite it themselves, only support the intent of the law as written. But, but... that would mean politicians would have to make tough decisions. Wouldn't that be something? I see the lights are on in Chicago. (what is there good to do in the Villa Park area - I have a free day before the meet in East Troy and was going to be in that area) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #47 July 20, 2005 QuoteWhen you become a rich man, would you be so kind as to spread a little of your new found wealth? In all seriousness, before ol' Teddy starts to whine about anything else I'd really like to see ol' Teddy stand up and actually take some responsibility for his actions in Chapaquiddic. Is that too much to ask? I make sure i take care of you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #48 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote what is there good to do in the Villa Park area Drive somewhere else.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #49 July 20, 2005 QuoteI can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Look at the last paragraph of Roman Numeral I. It reads, "In response to defendants' argument that the injunction's prohibition of the use of "derogatory racial or ethnic epithets" was vague, the Court of Appeal further ordered the trial court to add "an exemplary list of prohibited derogatory racial or ethnic epithets, specifying epithets such as those actually used in the workplace by Lawrence" in order to "more precisely warn Lawrence and Avis what is forbidden."" Further in the document, it is referred to in Kennard's dissent as "the Court of Appeal's proposal to amend the injunction by adding a list of forbidden 'bad words.'" Said Justice Mosk in his dissent, second paragraph from the last of Roman Numeral I of his dissent, "I disagree that any future use even of slurs, vulgarity, or derogatory epithets in the workplace -- even by a person who has previously engaged in employment discrimination -- can constitutionally be proscribed. That is because the offensive content and effect of using any one, or more, of a list of verboten words cannot be determined in advance" Mosk also said in the third paragraph or Roman Numeral I, "According to the Chief Justice, the injunction passes constitutional muster because it simply precludes defendants from continuing their unlawful activity. It does more than that. It directly targets otherwise protected speech, forbidding any future use of a list of offensive words in the workplace -- even outside the presence of plaintiffs and even if welcome or overtly permitted. Although the lead opinion insists that it would prohibit an illegal course of conduct, in fact it regulates speech on the basis of expressive content." Werdegar's Concurring opinion states in the first paragraph, "A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to narrow the terms of the injunction by limiting it to the workplace and to provide an exemplary list of prohibited words. " So, to answer your assertion that you can't find the "list" anywhere, you are right! It's because the "exemplary list" hadn't been created yet! What the Cal Supreme said was that a trial court could draft an "exemplary list" of banned words. The plurality held that it's cool to make lists of banned words. Did you see that in the link? There's another term for that - censorship. Wikipedia defines it as, "Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression. It is most commonly applied to acts which occur in public circumstances, and generally involves a suppression of them by criminalizing their expression. What is censored may range from specific words to entire concepts, and the ostensible motive of censorship is to stabilize or improve the society over which the government has control." This is what the First Amendment was intended to prevent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #50 July 20, 2005 Quote I DO wish that all of you that cry about the First gave a shit about the Second. Well put! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Pendejo 0 #45 July 20, 2005 Ok... So I read the ENTIRE link..... I can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote The Court should not in any way rewrite it themselves, only support the intent of the law as written. But, but... that would mean politicians would have to make tough decisions. Wouldn't that be something? I see the lights are on in Chicago. (what is there good to do in the Villa Park area - I have a free day before the meet in East Troy and was going to be in that area) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #47 July 20, 2005 QuoteWhen you become a rich man, would you be so kind as to spread a little of your new found wealth? In all seriousness, before ol' Teddy starts to whine about anything else I'd really like to see ol' Teddy stand up and actually take some responsibility for his actions in Chapaquiddic. Is that too much to ask? I make sure i take care of you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #48 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote what is there good to do in the Villa Park area Drive somewhere else.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #49 July 20, 2005 QuoteI can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Look at the last paragraph of Roman Numeral I. It reads, "In response to defendants' argument that the injunction's prohibition of the use of "derogatory racial or ethnic epithets" was vague, the Court of Appeal further ordered the trial court to add "an exemplary list of prohibited derogatory racial or ethnic epithets, specifying epithets such as those actually used in the workplace by Lawrence" in order to "more precisely warn Lawrence and Avis what is forbidden."" Further in the document, it is referred to in Kennard's dissent as "the Court of Appeal's proposal to amend the injunction by adding a list of forbidden 'bad words.'" Said Justice Mosk in his dissent, second paragraph from the last of Roman Numeral I of his dissent, "I disagree that any future use even of slurs, vulgarity, or derogatory epithets in the workplace -- even by a person who has previously engaged in employment discrimination -- can constitutionally be proscribed. That is because the offensive content and effect of using any one, or more, of a list of verboten words cannot be determined in advance" Mosk also said in the third paragraph or Roman Numeral I, "According to the Chief Justice, the injunction passes constitutional muster because it simply precludes defendants from continuing their unlawful activity. It does more than that. It directly targets otherwise protected speech, forbidding any future use of a list of offensive words in the workplace -- even outside the presence of plaintiffs and even if welcome or overtly permitted. Although the lead opinion insists that it would prohibit an illegal course of conduct, in fact it regulates speech on the basis of expressive content." Werdegar's Concurring opinion states in the first paragraph, "A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to narrow the terms of the injunction by limiting it to the workplace and to provide an exemplary list of prohibited words. " So, to answer your assertion that you can't find the "list" anywhere, you are right! It's because the "exemplary list" hadn't been created yet! What the Cal Supreme said was that a trial court could draft an "exemplary list" of banned words. The plurality held that it's cool to make lists of banned words. Did you see that in the link? There's another term for that - censorship. Wikipedia defines it as, "Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression. It is most commonly applied to acts which occur in public circumstances, and generally involves a suppression of them by criminalizing their expression. What is censored may range from specific words to entire concepts, and the ostensible motive of censorship is to stabilize or improve the society over which the government has control." This is what the First Amendment was intended to prevent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #50 July 20, 2005 Quote I DO wish that all of you that cry about the First gave a shit about the Second. Well put! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
bodypilot90 0 #47 July 20, 2005 QuoteWhen you become a rich man, would you be so kind as to spread a little of your new found wealth? In all seriousness, before ol' Teddy starts to whine about anything else I'd really like to see ol' Teddy stand up and actually take some responsibility for his actions in Chapaquiddic. Is that too much to ask? I make sure i take care of you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #48 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote what is there good to do in the Villa Park area Drive somewhere else.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #49 July 20, 2005 QuoteI can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Look at the last paragraph of Roman Numeral I. It reads, "In response to defendants' argument that the injunction's prohibition of the use of "derogatory racial or ethnic epithets" was vague, the Court of Appeal further ordered the trial court to add "an exemplary list of prohibited derogatory racial or ethnic epithets, specifying epithets such as those actually used in the workplace by Lawrence" in order to "more precisely warn Lawrence and Avis what is forbidden."" Further in the document, it is referred to in Kennard's dissent as "the Court of Appeal's proposal to amend the injunction by adding a list of forbidden 'bad words.'" Said Justice Mosk in his dissent, second paragraph from the last of Roman Numeral I of his dissent, "I disagree that any future use even of slurs, vulgarity, or derogatory epithets in the workplace -- even by a person who has previously engaged in employment discrimination -- can constitutionally be proscribed. That is because the offensive content and effect of using any one, or more, of a list of verboten words cannot be determined in advance" Mosk also said in the third paragraph or Roman Numeral I, "According to the Chief Justice, the injunction passes constitutional muster because it simply precludes defendants from continuing their unlawful activity. It does more than that. It directly targets otherwise protected speech, forbidding any future use of a list of offensive words in the workplace -- even outside the presence of plaintiffs and even if welcome or overtly permitted. Although the lead opinion insists that it would prohibit an illegal course of conduct, in fact it regulates speech on the basis of expressive content." Werdegar's Concurring opinion states in the first paragraph, "A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to narrow the terms of the injunction by limiting it to the workplace and to provide an exemplary list of prohibited words. " So, to answer your assertion that you can't find the "list" anywhere, you are right! It's because the "exemplary list" hadn't been created yet! What the Cal Supreme said was that a trial court could draft an "exemplary list" of banned words. The plurality held that it's cool to make lists of banned words. Did you see that in the link? There's another term for that - censorship. Wikipedia defines it as, "Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression. It is most commonly applied to acts which occur in public circumstances, and generally involves a suppression of them by criminalizing their expression. What is censored may range from specific words to entire concepts, and the ostensible motive of censorship is to stabilize or improve the society over which the government has control." This is what the First Amendment was intended to prevent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #50 July 20, 2005 Quote I DO wish that all of you that cry about the First gave a shit about the Second. Well put! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #49 July 20, 2005 QuoteI can't find this "list" anywhere. I'm sure its just me not seeing it. I can't believe that this could be possible (sarcasm). Do they list the words that they will jail you for anywhere? Look at the last paragraph of Roman Numeral I. It reads, "In response to defendants' argument that the injunction's prohibition of the use of "derogatory racial or ethnic epithets" was vague, the Court of Appeal further ordered the trial court to add "an exemplary list of prohibited derogatory racial or ethnic epithets, specifying epithets such as those actually used in the workplace by Lawrence" in order to "more precisely warn Lawrence and Avis what is forbidden."" Further in the document, it is referred to in Kennard's dissent as "the Court of Appeal's proposal to amend the injunction by adding a list of forbidden 'bad words.'" Said Justice Mosk in his dissent, second paragraph from the last of Roman Numeral I of his dissent, "I disagree that any future use even of slurs, vulgarity, or derogatory epithets in the workplace -- even by a person who has previously engaged in employment discrimination -- can constitutionally be proscribed. That is because the offensive content and effect of using any one, or more, of a list of verboten words cannot be determined in advance" Mosk also said in the third paragraph or Roman Numeral I, "According to the Chief Justice, the injunction passes constitutional muster because it simply precludes defendants from continuing their unlawful activity. It does more than that. It directly targets otherwise protected speech, forbidding any future use of a list of offensive words in the workplace -- even outside the presence of plaintiffs and even if welcome or overtly permitted. Although the lead opinion insists that it would prohibit an illegal course of conduct, in fact it regulates speech on the basis of expressive content." Werdegar's Concurring opinion states in the first paragraph, "A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment, but remanded the case to the trial court with directions to narrow the terms of the injunction by limiting it to the workplace and to provide an exemplary list of prohibited words. " So, to answer your assertion that you can't find the "list" anywhere, you are right! It's because the "exemplary list" hadn't been created yet! What the Cal Supreme said was that a trial court could draft an "exemplary list" of banned words. The plurality held that it's cool to make lists of banned words. Did you see that in the link? There's another term for that - censorship. Wikipedia defines it as, "Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression. It is most commonly applied to acts which occur in public circumstances, and generally involves a suppression of them by criminalizing their expression. What is censored may range from specific words to entire concepts, and the ostensible motive of censorship is to stabilize or improve the society over which the government has control." This is what the First Amendment was intended to prevent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #50 July 20, 2005 Quote I DO wish that all of you that cry about the First gave a shit about the Second. Well put! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
