Tag Archives: Court

Matters of Corporate Faith

The Supreme Court, in a rare and splendid example of getting it right, affirmed a principle that most people—especially liberals—overlooked in its recent decision concerning Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito even called it out in his majority opinion: corporations are people; groups of individuals. The problem with liberals is that they do not want to recognize the individual. Liberals have long tried to marginalize the accomplishments of the individual in favor of the group. This has led to the complete bastardization of youth sports where teams no longer keep score and everyone gets to play no matter the level of their athletic ability. It also leads to open enrollment where individual academic achievement is no longer a determining factor in college admissions. Liberals want a utopia wherein every citizen gets a shot at every benefit regardless of skill, talent or initiative.court-PQBG

This stems from a skewed interpretation of the old mantra “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” This derives from the basic democratic principle of majority rules. Liberals extend this idea into the absurd by saying that individual liberties are extraneous when considering the overall good as they see it. While there exists some applications wherein the idea has merit, overall the concept is a fallacy. Mom and pop stores, big box stores, corporations and even the government itself is comprised of individual people whose rights are protected by the constitution.

Despite the cries of “war on women” and “right to choose” (all of which are blatant lies) the Court’s decision is not refusing women the ability to use birth control, not forcing them to have unwanted babies nor forcing them to convert to Christianity. It merely states that the Government cannot force employers to pay for four of the twenty means of contraception that the ACA covers, when those means are counter to their professed religious beliefs.

This country was built to protect individual freedom and specifically religious liberty. This is why the very first amendment in the Bill of Right specifies that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Liberals are very quick to cite this amendment to deny religion in the public sphere crying “separation of church and state,” but hate when the faithful cite it to protect their rights to practice the tenets of their faith.

The Supreme Court, after a string of decisions that limit religion, held that publicly held for-profit corporations, just like non-profit corporations, do come under the protections of the first amendment. Liberals immediately cried out in outrage, claiming that a company is not an individual and that the owners of the corporation should not be able to “force their religious views” on their employees. They wish to treat corporations as though they had the same limitations as the federal government. This is a fallacy as the court has upheld by saying “protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them,” and “Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. ”

Liberals have also used the argument that if one religion is respected by law, then all religions should be which would be unsupportable and unreasonable. Alito addressed these concerns as well by saying “It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. ”

The most important comment in the majority view is the one defining a corporation: “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”

This does not mean only some of the people, like employees or shareholders, but all of the people in the corporation. No one should be forced to surrender their religious freedoms by mandate. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

So, despite George Takei’s missive in the Huffington Post denouncing religion while asserting that businesses and governments have no place for faith and Senator Reid’s announcement that Democrats will not let the decision stop them from covering all forms of birth control, the Court did the right thing on this one.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

The People Vs. Justice

The streets are full of idiots these days.  Mobs of people interrupted traffic on 288 yesterday and more protests are planned by people who think that the Zimmerman trial is an indication that our justice system is broken because Zimmerman was found not guilty. The verdict means, however, that the opposite is true.  This is yet another case of someone being tried (or in this case, retried) in the court of public opinion.   This court does not care for the rule of law, it makes decisions on nothing more than sensationalism and ideology; facts are to be ignored.  In this case, Trayvon Martin, a young black male, was shot and killed by Zimmerman, an Hispanic member of a neighborhood watch program who thought Martin was engaged in criminal activity.  Zimmerman followed Martin, claiming that Martin was behaving suspiciously.  A fight ensued ending in gun fire.
In most cases, this would not have made national news, but in this case, Martin is black and Zimmerman has a white-sounding name.  The fact that he is Hispanic doesn’t even enter into the discussion.  Some people claim that he is half-white–as if he was contaminated by racism since he has some white in him.  The police didn’t initially arrest him and the prosecutor didn’t initially charge him.  It was only after the race-baiters got involved were any criminal proceedings initiated.
After several years of media scrutiny, the trial began and in the end, Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers (if you consider 6 white women the peers of a Latino male) after 16 hours of deliberation.  The facts of the case are simple: the police didn’t think there was evidence of murder, the prosecutors didn’t think there was evidence of murder, but the media thought there was and the media ran story after story and pushed the issue to the federal government to force Florida to try Zimmerman for murder.  Now, when the evidence that prompted the cops and prosecutors not to press charges initially was put before a jury, they don’t find evidence of murder either.
But the story doesn’t stop there.
Now the same people who wanted to lynch Zimmerman in the first place are organizing protests across the country, as if doing so will force the courts to reverse the verdict.  Marches in most major cities disrupted traffic and caused economic troubles for merchants and businesses.  Did any of it help the Martin family deal with the loss of their son?  Probably not, but that didn’t stop the court of public opinion.
Again, this court doesn’t care about facts.  All they care about is creating a firestorm of public outrage and getting media attention to further their political aims.  This highlights one underlying problem in America: racism cannot be allowed to die.  It is not the white population that is fostering racism in America these days.  It is the black leadership establishment who cannot exist in a society without racism.  If everyone was color blind, there would be no need to have lobbyists in Washington to promote affirmative action.  There would be no need for new legislation forcing people to consider race in staffing decisions, promotions, educational admissions or any other facet of life, which would mean that an entire industry would cease to exist.
We as a country have elected a black president–twice.  This was done not just because every black person voted for him, but because people from all races (having lost their minds) voted for him.  This tells me that we as a society have moved beyond race, much to the dismay of those who constantly insist that America is racist.  These ideas are even apparent to the supreme court, who decided that America has moved far enough away from the racial divides of the early part of our history to repeal racially motivated restrictions on election polling policies.
But that isn’t good enough for the far left.  They want to remind any and everyone that America has a history that includes slavery and because of that, it will ALWAYS be a racist country, filled with racist whites who want nothing more than to kill the black man with impunity.
Martin was killed.  This is a tragedy.  There is no denying that.  But the American justice system, having had its arm twisted into knots by the left, still found that his death was not murder nor was it manslaughter.  The evidence has spoken and a jury has issued its verdict.  The justice system has worked as it is designed to.  We have to remember that the justice system is not designed to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent.  Even if it means protecting the innocent from a racially motivated lynch mob hell-bent on issuing opinion-based verdicts that have no basis in the truth that wish to maintain an anti racist system that promotes racism.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

When Justice Isn’t Just

The greatest miscarriage of justice since the OJ Simpson case, according to some, has resulted in the acquittal of Casey Anthony on murder charges for the death of her daughter Cayley. In what has been one of the most watched trials since Simpson’s, prosecutors have tried to convince a jury that Casey Anthony, a 25-year-old single mother, was so frustrated with her lot in life that she smothered her child, hid the body and partied for a month before family members started asking questions about Cayley’s whereabouts. Defense attorneys maintained that the baby drowned in the family pool and Casey was so distraught that she followed her father’s recommendations to dispose of the body rather than call the police to report the accident. The media has devoted substantial amounts of airtime to covering the case and the trial; so much so that almost every American has at least heard of the case. After months of testimony in what many experts considered an open-and-shut case with guilty as the inevitable verdict, Casey was acquitted of the murder. America is outraged feeling that justice has failed.

Now, people are pointing fingers at the prosecution for its failure to get a conviction. They blame the jury for failing to render a just verdict and they blame the media for tainting the trial with excessive coverage. They blame everyone except the one responsible. There are only two people who really know what happened to little Cayley: Casey and her father George Anthony and neither one will tell the truth.

George Anthony is a retired police officer. If anyone knows how to ruin an investigation it would be an ex-cop. With the ping-pong like shifting of blame between George and Casey, the lack of any real physical evidence, and the lack of motive, prosecutors were pushing a cart uphill the whole way. Without proof of foul play—the smoking gun as it were—there is no evidence of murder. Certainly Cayley died and certainly her death is extremely suspicious. But there has never been any real evidence—proof beyond a shadow of a doubt—that her death was anything other than accidental.

The prosecution gathered all types of evidence in building their case from forensic reports about how hair follicles look during decomposition to IT forensics as they culled data from Casey’s computer that showed someone—they couldn’t prove who—researched how to make chloroform and other “suspicious” search terms. They interviewed friends, family and complete strangers to try to find some link between Casey and the death. They even interviewed people who shared a cell with Casey during the three times she was incarcerated during the investigation. Every shred of evidence they found, however, was circumstantial. None of it proved anything; at least not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact of the matter is that Casey was found “Not Guilty.” This is not the same as being innocent. To be found guilty requires that there be no reasonable doubt about guilt. If a doubt exists, then guilt is not proven. Without the smoking gun, without solid motive and without definitive proof, the only reasonable verdict in this case was not guilty. It may not be just, but it is our justice system.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

All Rise—Court is Now in Session

Two men have had their careers damaged—possibly ruined—over a matter of poor judgment. One, a air traffic controller and the other, his boss, have been suspended as a result of a parent trying to show his son what he does for a living. The controller, whose name has not been released, took his son to work on a day when the kids were out of school. While there, he let the boy speak to the planes on the ground over the radio. While this may not be the best choice he could have made, it has created quite the firestorm in the media and in the public consciousness. And that is where the problem really begins: in the court of Public Opinion.

The boy at no time was directing flight operations or interacting with aircraft on approach. He only spoke to a few planes on the ground awaiting takeoff, and what he said was fed to him by his father, who no doubt was wearing headphones himself to hear the interchange. The pilots even commented that it was refreshing to see a parent involved with his son and were not bothered at all by the boy’s interaction.

The entire interaction was recorded and posted on the internet—apparently a common practice. The news media picked up the interchange and reported on it, and that is where the story grew legs. It eventually caught the attention of the FAA, who has imposed the suspensions pending a formal investigation and policy review.

Now, the fact that dad did violate FAA policy is not the question. That he should not have let the boy issue directives is not the issue. What the main problem here points to is the public’s interpretations of any given issue. People have opinions. The old saying goes that opinions are like buttholes; everyone has one. More than that, however, is that everyone thinks that their opinion is most important, even if they don’t have all the relevant facts of a matter.

One reporter relating the story emphasized that hundreds of lives were at stake. Well, that is not exactly true. Yes, there was at least one plane with passengers, but what the child said was not operationally significant and no one was at risk, yet the news portrays the incident as though the plane could have crashed because of the incident. This fuels the public’s concerns and inflames the negative opinion.

Trials by jury are courts wherein the public makes a determination of guilt or innocence of a given party. These juries are selected through a rigorous process called Voir Dire where the attorneys and officers of the court select the jury members before trial, and at trial control the presentation of relevant data and how to apply these facts to the case at hand. This process, while not perfect, maintains some semblance of order and fairness.

The Court Of Public Opinion does not have these controls. People gather and shoot off their mouths about any number of issues based solely on half-truths and rumor and personal ideology. They make no attempt to understand the entire issue and in many occasions don’t even want to hear anything that detracts from their preformed conclusions. In this court, the ATC is guilty of not only stupidity, but gross negligence since hundreds of people could have died.

According to one article by the Associated Press, the FAA does allow guests within the air traffic control tower to observe. There might even be language in the policy that could allow what the controller did. I don’t know. I don’t have access to those regulations. Either way, the FAA has acted and will act to ensure this does not happen again. But in reality, what the boy did was harmless and under rigidly controlled circumstances. What was the harm?

According to the court of public opinion, lives were in danger. That is harm enough for them. But then again, in this court, Don Imus is racist, Harry Reid is racist, Tim Tebow’s mom is a radical who should be silenced, and the President is either God’s gift to mankind or the devil incarnate (depending on who you ask). The joy of it all is that it doesn’t really matter. This court over-rules itself by the minute and what is evil one day is celebrated the next.

People are fickle and that will never change. The media flows through this court and sometimes dictates the rulings or is dictated by the rulings. None of it matters. All I can say is that the dad in question should be lauded for being an involved parent and showing his son what he does. In olden times, this was the norm. Sons apprenticed with their fathers to learn the trade to take over the family business. Work ethics were stronger back then as was quality. Maybe we should all take our kids to work.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Society