And Justice For All
written by Laramie:
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
A federal judge declares the Health Care Law unconstitutional. Now let's be clear about this! Is it or isn't it? Wasn't it just recently that two other judges, of a different political party, said it was constitutional? Should the health of the nation's citizens be a partisan issue, like almost every other issue? And, maybe more important, is a government run health program a good idea in the first place? Aren't almost all government run agencies just begging to be criticized for waste and incompetence?
A recent report complains that the immigration laws are not consistently or uniformly enforced. What law is? DUI laws involving off duty inebriated police officers getting away with no enforcement of the law, and tax laws involving Congressmen not reporting income are just two glaring areas that are well known for turning a blind eye to violators. Why should we believe that immigration laws would be handled any differently? Take for example the Arizona rancher who observed four illegal immigrants crossing his property. He apparently detained them at gunpoint until authorities arrived. He was ordered to pay the sum of $87,000 to the illegal trespassers, and the order was upheld in a Court of Appeals. I must be missing something here! What happened to the illegals?
An olive growing ranch in Southern California sues hot air balloon operators and companies for flying over the ranch's airspace. And they get an injunction to force the balloons to stop the flights. Who's next, flights out of LAX? Or maybe NASA will have to rearrange their space program? No telling what damage is done to the ripening olives when a hot air balloon flies 500 feet over the olive trees during the growing season and harvest time. The lawyer for the balloonists said the suit, on its face, is full of hot air. That says it all!
Billionaires reportedly gather in Palm Desert to discuss ways to "improve the economy" and other issues. Liberal groups begin protesting "terribly insidious attendees who secretly fund organizations that dismiss democracy, deny global climate changes and destroy Social Security, Medicare and the new health care plan." Denying global climate changes! Wow! There "oughta" be a law against such a heinous crime! Protestors claimed overkill by an excessive number of police assigned to prevent violence, although 65 protestors are arrested. Turns out that a conference of judges was meeting at the same time nearby, and this was hushed up, and the police, without the protestors knowing it, were also assigned to protect these vulnerable magistrates, mainly as a result of the January 8 killing of a judge in Tucson, Arizona. The Koch conference members, who together employ some 70,000 workers, reminded the protestors that the people attending these meetings have the right to assemble and speak their views freely and peaceably, as do the protestors, stressing the word peaceably. The question comes up once again. Which Constitutional right has priority? In this case, is it the right peaceably to assemble, or to peaceably protest against the reason for the assembly? In fact, it is neither, if it's a peaceable protest. The problem boils down to this: historically, giants of industry meeting to discuss current issues with a common purpose have rarely erupted into violence and violations of law, whereas it seems that protestors seem to be in the news regularly and are shown as unruly mobs, destroying public and private property and threatening life and limb. Does either group deserve just a little more police supervision? You be the judge.
Law enforcement within our court system is getting harder and harder to understand. For example, a 23 year old good Samaritan was struck by a vehicle while he was pushing a man in a wheelchair up a curb. The blood -alcohol level of the driver of the vehicle registered .16, twice the amount needed to call a driver drunk. The injured man died the next day. The judge in the case, Dale R. Wells, said his sentence was not an easy one to decide, as the drunken driver had no prior record, was cooperative with the police, and admitted his guilt. The judge, believe it or not, denied a request that the defendant be sentenced to a prison term, and then let the man off with a one year jail sentence. Oh, and in addition, the man's drivers license was taken away and he was ordered to attend regular meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous for one year. That'll sure make him think twice before he gets drunk and runs another pedestrian down! I presume it wasn't the judge's 23 year old son who was killed? There's something wrong with that picture!
In Florida, two men were having a religious discussion about tolerance of each other's views when one of the men stated that he was a Muslim. The other man grabbed the Muslim by the shirt and stabbed him in the neck with a knife. The stabber was charged with aggravated battery. I suppose being stabbed in the neck would aggravate a lot of people. The judge apparently didn't think the aggravation was too excessive, as the knife wielder was immediately released on $15,000 bail. I wonder what ever happened to the bodily harm with a deadly weapon laws? And what about the Rule of Law? Or maybe the judge didn't like Muslims either.
An 18 year old man in Southern California was walking away from an accident when police officers told him to stop, sit down, and hand over his cell phone. He surprised the officers, jumped on them and started beating on them causing head and face bruises on one officer. Even pepper spray couldn't stop the young man, as he showed unusual strength. He was arrested, but since he pleaded guilty to the felony of resisting arrest, he was given probation and fined $800.00. Is there no end to the lenient enforcement of our laws by some judges? It just doesn't make sense. Does simply confessing to a crime justify not handing down sentences that the law allows?
People who are opposed to capital punishment often quote amendment number VIII in the Bill of Rights that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" as criteria for their opposition. Some believe that handing down maximum sentences for repeat offenders does not reduce violent crimes. Some want fewer prisons. But can anyone seriously believe that handing down light sentences, or probation for serious crimes, or making prison comfortable, or attending anger management meetings will in any way cut down on criminal behavior? It's unbelievable!
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers