Tag Archives: rights

A Thought on JASTA

Posted on by
4

JASTA is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed overwhelmingly by each house of Congress and just vetoed by President Barack Obama (D).  The bill would allow the survivors of the 9/11 victims to sue in American courts the Saudi Arabian government and members of it over their alleged role in the terrorist attacks and to seek recompense for those participations.

Without commenting on the legitimacy such suits, or on the likelihood that enough Democrats will roll over for their leader to sustain his veto, I have this on an argument against the bill.

[I]f US citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats, and its service members.

Whether or not foreign countries “could do the same” to us is a matter of those nations’ domestic law, current or to-be-passed.

Thus: those nations already can “do the same” to us, without waiting for a JASTA suit, and it’s already been done.  This is a nakedly specious argument by Obama against the bill.

Yet Another Democrat’s Disregard for An Inconvenient Law

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Governor Terry McAuliffe (D, VA) granted en masse a restoral of the right to vote to some 200,000 convicted felons, and the Virginia Supreme Court said Virginia law didn’t allow that: any such restoral had to come only after individual, case by case evaluation of each felon separately from any other felons.

McAuliffe replied that he “cannot accept” the ruling. He called it a “political decision” that “reminded” him of Bush v Gore and that the justices were “scared” of the legislature. He has since acted on his defiance by restoring rights to some 13,000 felons who had already registered to vote when the state Supreme Court’s decision invalidated his executive order.

McAuliffe also is insisting that he’ll restore the vote to the remaining 200,000 before he’s out of the Governor’s mansion.

In addition to that contempt of—and for—Virginia’s Supreme Court, his charge that the Supremes were scared is nothing but an FDR-esque effort to intimidate those Justices to rule more…suitably…in future.

The Wall Street Journal put it succinctly at the above link:

McAuliffe has nullified the Virginia Constitution’s guidelines on felon voting simply because he dislikes those rules.

And

At stake is whether an executive can first rewrite the law in defiance of the legislature and then do what he wants anyway in defiance of a court.

This is the risk we run from a Clinton extension in 2017 of the Democrats’ rule over our nation.

Free Speech and Disruptions

Posted on by
2

Do high school football fans have a constitutional right to display the American flag at games?

That question headlined Jacob Gershman’s piece in a recent Wall Street Journal law blog.  A North Carolina high school principal, Travelers Rest High School’s Lou Lavely, answered that question in the negative, justifying his ban of the American flag from the school’s home football games with the excuse that students had

used the US flag, in conjunction with verbal taunts, to target Hispanic members of the Berea community in a manner that was both unsportsmanlike and also a misuse of our flag[.]

Lavely’s move also was consistent with an earlier 9th Circuit ruling on the other side of the country that

a California high school didn’t infringe on the constitutional rights of white students who were told they couldn’t wear shirts displaying the American flag in an effort, the school said, to defuse a potential fight with Mexican students

a ruling that the Supreme Court then declined to review.

In the face of public outrage over the flag ban, Lavely reversed his position and “allowed” our flag to be displayed after all.  However, that doesn’t cure the misunderstanding, both by Lavely and our courts, underlying such bans of our flag or of shirts with our flag imprinted on them or of any other such display.

The misunderstanding is in the cause of disruptions and how to deal with those disruptions.

Banning the American flag because its display might cause disruption is wrong-headed.  The American flag, or displaying our flag—free speech generally—doesn’t cause disruptions.  The disrupters cause disruptions, and they’re the ones who need to be dealt with.

Full stop.

Update: Clarified a sentence to say what I actually meant rather than the opposite.  Also clarified a later paragraph.

On an Ohio Early Voting Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

The 6th Circuit has ruled on Ohio’s Golden Week of voting, which allowed an extra week of early voting together with same-day voter registration.  Ohio had withdrawn that week in 2014 legislation, leaving 29 days before November’s formal voting day for voter registration and early voting.  The appellate court, in response to Democrats’ suit and win in trial court, overturned the trial court and allowed the removal of Golden Week to stand.  As a result, Ohioans will have those 29 days, instead of 36 days, in which to register to vote and then to vote.

Democrats had challenged the procedural changes, arguing they imposed disproportionate burdens on African-Americans, who made greater use of the golden-week voting….

How blatantly disingenuous of the Democrats.  That a particular group of Americans uses a week’s early privilege more than other groups of Americans in no way burdens the particular group when they lose that week, given the vast amount of time remaining in which all groups of Americans can exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How insulting of the Democrats toward a particular group of Americans to assume that members of that group are too stupid or lazy to make use of the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How utterly racist of the Democrats to assume that blacks are simply too stupid to use the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote and so need the protection of their Betters to take care of them.

California’s Disdain

Posted on by
Reply

…for religion is made manifest by its SB 1146, Equity in Higher Education Act, currently under consideration before the California Senate.

As it currently stands, parochial schools—church schools, religious schools, schools run according to a clearly stated set of religious tenets—are exempt from discrimination laws where such discrimination is centered on religious beliefs.  Schools and their students are free to follow their conscience and to require employees, and students, to adhere to certain basic sets of behaviors.  As Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake put it in their piece,

Current California law exempts religious schools from nondiscrimination laws in cases where applying these laws “would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
…
For years now, this policy has worked well, enabling church-run colleges and universities to hire personnel and establish policies and expectations regarding religious practice and personal conduct that reflect their beliefs and values.

California State Senator Ricardo Lara’s (D) bill seeks to destroy this (Gomez and Blake are more polite about Lara’s motive and his bill’s overall impact.  I don’t agree, though, that Lara doesn’t understand what he’s doing).  His bill would only exempt seminaries or other schools that train clergy and ministers; it would rescind that religious freedom protection everywhere else.

Any other faith-based school that receives state monies or enrolls students who depend on the Cal Grants financial aid program would be forced to change their policies to accommodate practices that in some cases would be contrary to their beliefs and teachings.

Detailed provisions in the legislation include rules for bathroom use and sleeping arrangements in dormitories. The bill even has the government setting guidelines for what “religious practices” and “rules for moral conduct” will be acceptable on these campuses.

All in the guise of “protecting” individual choice.  Never mind, though, that Lara knows full well that those who wish to work or study at these schools are making their choice at that point.  Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well that his bill allows those who disagree with the school’s religious tenets can attend, or get hired, and then force the school to violate its own tenets to accommodate these.

Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well the damage his bill will do to those he claims to be trying to help, low-income and minority families—including millions served by our respective faith communities here in Los Angeles.  As Gomez and Blake note—and as Lara surely knows—60% of these religious schools’ students are minorities and nearly 90% need financial aid.  Aid that Lara’s bill would cut off unless these schools kowtow to his demands.

It shouldn’t take elders of the religious community to point this out.  Any lay person—me, for instance—can see this plainly.  Which means, in particular, that Lara, whose bill this is, sees it plainly.  And doesn’t care.

Keep in mind one other thing, too.  Rights granted by Government, or presumed granted by Government, can be withdrawn by Government, too, and at that Government’s whim.  Lara’s bill is a clear demonstration of that.