Family one: “Help! Terrorists might harm me and my family, destroying our home and ruining our lives!”
Republican politician: “Don’t worry, the government is here to help you, by checking phone messages and emails for suspicious types and stopping them before they can act! We’ll make sure nothing bad happens to you and your family!”
…
Family two: “Help! Cancer is destroying me and my family, and the costs have made us lose our home and is ruining our lives!”
Republican politician: “Oh, well, tough luck. Sorry, it’s not the Government’s job to help you.”
I have always given this advice to all my clients (and anyone willing to listen): If there is any chance you might be a suspect, even if it’s not true, do not talk to the police. There is nothing you can say that will make things better. Their job is to get you to confess or at least say things that can be used against you. That makes their job so much easier later. The only exception is if you have an air-tight alibi (“I was in Europe the last three months and here’s my passport to prove it.”)
Well, I’m not sure what to advise them now. The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that silence can be used against you, too.
According to this decision, the District Attorney is allowed to argue to the jury that your silence can be interpreted as a sign of guilt.
Conservatives everywhere are thrilled with this new interpretation of the 5th Amendment — an interpretation which wholly new and not supported by any documentation from the Founding Fathers whose “intent” they always say should follow. Apparently, every Amendment has exceptions (except, of course, for the 2nd.)
This, by the way, is a great example of “judicial activism” wherein the judges write laws and change the meanings of long-established precedent. You know how much conservatives hate judicial activism. Well, unless they agree with the result.
My only hope is that some states (such as Pennsylvania, where I practice) will negate the decision. After all, a state can always give more rights than the bare minimum required by the Constitution.
Governor Rick Perry has three problems with the 1st amendment: First, it doesn’t allow Christians to say “Merry Christmas.” Second, it doesn’t allow for Christmas decorations. And third … uh … I can’t remember the third thing. Oops.
Yes, it’s true — Texas has just passed the “Merry Christmas Act” which is their fight against the “War on Christmas”. This law allows those in public schools to say “Merry Christmas” and allows for religious holiday decorations (as long as secular decorations are also included).
Hey, did any of you notice anything about that law? Such as that’s what the law is across the entire country now?
The whole made-up “War on Christmas” is based on the false premise that you are prohibited from having any religion whatsoever in the public sphere. “You’re not allowed to bring a Bible to school!” They yell. “You can’t even say a prayer if you want to, and you can’t have religious symbols even if secular symbols are included!”
The people who say these things are idiots, and assume you are too. They are absolutely wrong on every single point.
What is prohibited is government-sponsored religion. You can carry your Bible and say prayers all day long in school if you want to (so long as you don’t disturb classes and you otherwise follow all school rules that apply to everyone). Not to allow that would violate the “Free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment. If a school official gives a prayer and hands out Bibles, then that would violate the “Establishment” clause of the 1st amendment (in that the government is not allowed to establish or promote religion).
It’s really very clear and obvious to anyone who takes a few seconds to read the Constitution — a small group of people that does not include Governor Perry, who proclaimed that “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.” What an idiot.
But they don’t care, really. They just want to force everyone to follow their religion. A Texas judge even ruled recently that school cheerleaders were allowed to wear uniforms with Bible verses. If we protest, we’re waging a “War on Christians” but when they force their views on us, using our tax dollars, it’s never a “War on Non-Christians.”
These same hypocrites are the first ones who shout and scream about Sharia Law becoming part of America, even though this has never happened. It’s perfectly fine if their religion becomes part of our secular laws, but if anyone else’s religion pops up, suddenly they’re all 1st Amendment absolutists.
It’s maddening, it’s illegal, and it’s … it’s …. I can’t think of the third thing. Oops.
When it comes to the Patriot Act, there are just too many hypocrites to deal with.
The Patriot Act allows the NSA to listen to phone conversations and emails for certain key words, at which time they can get a subpoena to get all the records (a subpoena which has never been denied by the court — great oversight, huh?). It certainly appears to be a complete violation of the 4th Amendment to me and many Constitutional scholars, but until the Supreme Court says so, it’s the law and allowed.
For some reason, this is now a big issue, even though it’s been going on for about ten years. This has brought out a gaggle of hypocrites.
First, you have the ones on the right, who defended George W. Bush when he did this but call Obama’s use of the same law a gross violation of their rights. (These pundits and politicians, centered mostly at Fox News, are part of the same gang that said criticizing GWB during wartime was “treason” but doing the same to Obama during wartime is their patriotic duty.)
The clip below is a great example, showing Fox’s Sean Hannity’s position flipping 180 degrees based on whether this was done by a President Fox supported or one they oppose.
But this is not limited to the right. There are hypocrites on the left as well (though not as many) who opposed this under Bush but approve it under Obama.
The biggest hypocrite on the left is Obama himself. He’s ignored his campaign promises in this regard.
His view is apparently that he is against the abuse that can come from the Patriot Act — but doesn’t see that he is abusing it. In other words, he thinks “In the hands of a bad President, this would be a huge violation of our rights, but I’m not a bad President, and I have used it for good.” I think he is feeling some guilt over this and has recently began to talk about getting rid of it (again) because he is worried about who might hold that office after him.
So he doesn’t see himself as a hypocrite; he sees his position as changed based on the circumstances. How very convenient for him.
The good news is that there are those on both the right and the left who have been consistent in their views on this issue, and they should be congratulated and acknowledged.
ventrellaquest.com 