Tag Archive for Supreme Court

Deadly Racism Approved by Supreme Court

March 27, 2019 Comments Off on Deadly Racism Approved by Supreme Court

There are two types of black people—”regular black folks” and “***gers” was the expressed belief of a juror deciding in favor of the death penalty for Black defendant Keith Tharp. Lower courts wouldn’t handle the hot potato appeals. Then it went to the Supreme Court–and they refused to hear the case, too! So Tharp awaits execution.

We’re supposed to be judged by a fair and impartial jury. If you were____ (insert your race or nationality) on trial for your life, how would you feel about a juror who was obviously and vocally prejudiced against your race or nationality and influencing the other jurors? Would you feel you were being judged fairly and impartially?

Think about that as you read what happened to Tharp, and, consequently, to our justice system. Read The Supreme Court Won’t Hear the Case of an Inmate Sentenced to Death by Racist Juror.

Uncategorized , , , , ,

Tight Jeans–Invitation to Rape?

April 25, 2018 Comments Off on Tight Jeans–Invitation to Rape?

Denim Day?!  How stupid is that!  Not at all when we look at how it started and what wearing denim today means.

18 years ago the Italian Supreme Court reversed a rapist’s conviction because his victim was wearing tight denim pants.  Therefore, (they guessed) she must have helped him remove them.  Therefore, ruled the court, because she had given implied consent, the sex was  consensual.  The women in Parliament wore denim the next day in support of the victim and protest at the decision.  Thus, Denim Day was born.

What does it mean?  Standing up for rape victims.  Saying that what a woman wears does NOT mean she’s asking to be raped.  That there needs to be changes in attitudes toward sexual assault.  As the Denim Day Campaign says, “There is no excuse and never an invitation to rape.”

Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Tight Denim and Rape

April 26, 2017 Comments Off on Tight Denim and Rape

Denim Day?!  How stupid is that!  Not at all when we look at how it started and what wearing denim today means.

18 years ago the Italian Supreme Court reversed a rapist’s conviction because his victim was wearing tight denim pants.  Therefore, (they guessed) she must have helped him remove them.  Therefore, ruled the court, because she had given implied consent, the sex was  consensual.  The women in Parliament wore denim the next day in support of the victim and protest at the decision.  Thus, Denim Day was born.

What does it mean?  Standing up for rape victims.  Saying that what a woman wears does NOT mean she’s asking to be raped.  That there needs to be changes in attitudes toward sexual assault.  As the Denim Day Campaign says, “There is no excuse and never an invitation to rape.”

 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Irony for the Day

January 31, 2017 2 comments

I dearly love irony, especially situational irony (a difference between what is expected and what actually happens).  The example I give today is NOT a political comment, just something that tickled my irony-bone.

Congressman Steve Scalisi, Majority Whip, is harshly critical of Senate Democrats who say they’ll oppose President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court “before they even know who it is.”  He calls it an “incredible level of irresponsibility” and says that they should just “do their job.”

Where was Scalisi the last yer of Obama’s presidency when the Republicans were doing the same thing?

Or maybe Scalisi enjoys irony, too.

 

 

 

Uncategorized , , ,

College Decisions

December 16, 2016 Comments Off on College Decisions

Here’s a thought: When the members of the Electoral College meet this coming Monday, what if most of the 537 votes are for Evan McMullin?  

Evan who?  You know, that Independent who got the least number of votes after “Other” (even write-ins got more).

Really, there isn’t any Federal law or Constitutional provision against it–so sayeth the Supreme Court.

Hillary and Donald are still irritating people, and some are worried about a government run by the very rich and/or inexperienced and/or people who have made their intentions clear that they hate the departments they’re about to head up.

I guess there would be an uproar.  But any louder uproar than the election of Donald Trump?  If the election is already decided, why do those people need to cast votes on Monday and Congress count those votes on this coming Jan. 6?

President McMullin.  What if?  I was just wondering…………

 

 

Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Julian Bond: The World’s Loss

August 20, 2015 Comments Off on Julian Bond: The World’s Loss

The world lost a force for good last Saturday, when Julian Bond died.  For those of you who don’t recognize his name, he was  a civil rights activist, former NAACP chairman, educator, politician, and leader.  Many people disagreed with his stand against the Vietnam war and against discrimination, but he lived according to his conscious.  An interesting note is that he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives but, because he was Black, was not allowed to serve until after taking his case to the the Supreme Court and winning.

It’s only appropriate, then, that today’s Thursday Thought comes from him:

 

 

Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Police and Mental Illness

March 24, 2015 Comments Off on Police and Mental Illness

The Supreme Court should not have to deal with the Frances Sheehan case.  Recall that she’s the woman with schizophrenia shot by police in her room at her group home because she was threatening her social worker with a knife.   The suit before the court is based on the Americans with Disabilities act, saying that police must give “special accommodations” to people with disabilities.

I wasn’t there, so I won’t pass judgment on how the police handled the situation, or on the merits of the case.

What I will pass judgment on, though, is police training.  Apart from the medical profession, what group of people is most likely to have to deal with people with mental disabilities?  Obviously, the police.  In most police departments, officers are instructed to call in for a specially trained officer to diffuse such situations, which, of course, adds time to, therefore, potential escalation of, a dangerous situation.

My question is, if a small number of officers can be trained to work with the mentally ill, why isn’t such training required of all officers?  Wouldn’t that be safer for all concerned, decrease the number of deaths and injuries on both sides, and lessen the need for court cases?

Or am I being too logical?

Uncategorized , , , , , , ,