Supreme Court blocks internet porn law

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5324463/

[mreye]

I'm on the fence with this one.

 

I like porn, but I like kids too. What to do, what to do.

[JUGGERNAUT]

:fyou judges!

 

Tell the F'g truth once in a while & maybe you'll develop a F'g conscience.

 

The law Clinton signed was a direct response to a growing problem at the time:

adults were using underage porn to seduce minors into sex.

 

The case that was brought to them had to deal with the ACLU representing those charged with those crimes.

 

No where in the media reports is this even mentioned.

They just lump porn all together.

 

They could have struck down parts of the law that deal with non-underage porn & left those in place. But they have no F'g consciences to even bother.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

A great day for freedom of speech!

 

I'm sure Thomas voted to block this porn law so he could continue to discuss pornography while at the office.

 

If there is a bedrock principle of the 1st amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -- Justice Brennan, TX vs Johnson 1989

[kapkomet]

I actually agree with the Supreme Court on this one. And for all you people that b**** about the Supreme Court taking away our rights, remember this case.

 

(note: personally I hate the implications but I think the ruling PER THE CONSTITUTION is right on).

[southsider2k5]

I actually agree with the Supreme Court on this one.  And for all you people that b**** about the Supreme Court taking away our rights, remember this case.

 

(note: personally I hate the implications but I think the ruling PER THE CONSTITUTION is right on).

Exactly. We might not like the specifics of the case, but the whole point it protect the rights of the individual, no matter how we look down our nose at it.... UNLESS there is a harm in doing so.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Exactly.  We might not like the specifics of the case, but the whole point it protect the rights of the individual, no matter how we look down our nose at it.... UNLESS there is a harm in doing so.

The fact remains this decision goes against the ruling majority opinion of Americans. The law was passed with a majority of both houses & signed by Clinton.

 

That means it was already watered down to begin with. This decision means that it will likely be another 5 years before a new law is worked. In the meantime child molesters are free to use any means at their disposal to seduce kids.

 

Now I understand both sides of this issue & I'm not entirely in agreement on either.

I respect the first amendment rights so I certainly don't want the law abused by law enforcement officials. But on the other hand I look at the consequences in absence of the law.

 

I'm not against the US SC striking down such laws. But when a law has such wide-spread support & clearly reflects the majority opinion of the nation the US SC should then clearly guide Congress in what elements of the law are unconstitutional & which are not. They should make their best effort in helping Congress write a better law that will be approved by their interpretation of the law.

 

The time, effort, & $ that goes into writing these laws is too great to simply be tossed aside in the end.

 

We gave the president the power of a line item veto. Governors have it as well.

Perhaps it's time to give the US SC similar powers with respect to interpreting the law. Strike down the parts that are unconstitutional & allow those that are.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The state is not a nanny.

 

"My kids are watching too much violence and sex on TV. Instead of monitoring what they watch like a responsible parent, I will demand that the state put in harsh sanctions by the FCC on what they see and hear and allow the government to make my choices for me!"

 

"My kids are listening to music that has questionable lyrics. Instead of monitoring what they listen to and discussing why I disapprove, I'll have the state put stickers on them in a set of random quality controls because of what some Christians do not like!"

 

"My kids are fat. Instead of making them go out and play, I let them load up on soda, chips, ho-hos, etc. I need to sue the companies and fast food restaurants for making my children fat."

 

"My kids surf the internet. Instead of monitoring what they look at by putting in parental controls, I'll let them roam free and if they get done up the butt by a pedophile, I need the state to control that so it won't happen."

 

The citizens of the US need to get off their asses and f***ing be assertive parents, for f***'s sake instead of having the ever growing nanny state doing everything for them because they're too goddamned lazy to see what their children are involved in. The idea that people actually have to be assertive rather than sit back and consume, consume and f***ing consume must be repulsive to most Americans.

 

And hey, "majority", how's these apples?

If there is a bedrock principle of the 1st amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -- Justice Brennan, TX vs Johnson 1989

[cwsox]

We gave the president the power of a line item veto.

The president does not have line item veto.

 

In some/many states the governors do but not all.

 

Courts often strike down portions of legislation, contracts, whatever is before it and affirm others. It happens all the time. Thus they have "line item veto" and always have. Read the court decisons of the courts of appeals and supreme courts of your state and the feds. You will find the phrase "upheld in part, overtured in part as to..." numerous times.

 

The glory of the American system is that no matter how "popular" something may be, if it violates the constitution, when the system works, it gets tossed. If America is not America in the most difficult of circumstances, than America is nothing. America is America when it is true to its constitution regardless of public polls.

 

The blame here is squarely on Congress and the President. The Supremes have struck down a similar law before for the same reasons and Congress and he President signing returned a virtually identical law which of course got struck down. Had the legislative and the executive branches read the prior court decisions and crafted a law that met the court's stated constitutional objections, they would have been acting responsibly. But they did not act responsibilty. To pass and sign a bill that does not meet prior court objections is a fantatsic waste of time and money but is great political grandstanding in an election year at great cost.

 

By the same token, the USSC will strike down the so-called partial birth thing. It has been struck down repeatedly because in prior versions there was no exception for the life of the woman. So in an election season it was passed in identical form again this time with added "findings" that the life of the woman is never at risk. Oh????????? What a farce. And I am not sure what competance Congress has to made medical findings such as that. And as a matter of course federal district judges are striking this retread law with its unconstitutional findings. And the USSC will. And people will cry, why won't the court uphold this law?

 

The proper question is, why won't the Congress and the President out forth a piece of legislation that meets constitutional muster, to wit, that includes an excetion for the life of the woman. The refusal of congress and the president to put forth such a bill, but instead, put forth something that has been struck down at least twice by prior USSC decisions, is the height of political grandstanding and shows that they really don't care about the issue or the lives of women because otherwise they would pass a ban on this medical procedure that would include an exception for the life of the woman, as the court has stated repeatedly that the constitution requires.

 

Yet when this is struck down, people will blame the court. No, blame those who passed and signed a bill that clearly does not meet constitutional muster in its disdain for the lives of women.

 

When the grandstanding president and congress want to really ban a medical procedure, they will include a provision for the life of the woman. Since they won't, it is a fair observation that they care far more for scoring grandstanding points in an election season than in actually passing a law that protects women's lives that would then pass constitutional muster.

[Spiff]

The state is not a nanny.

 

"My kids are watching too much violence and sex on TV.  Instead of monitoring what they watch like a responsible parent, I will demand that the state put in harsh sanctions by the FCC on what they see and hear and allow the government to make my choices for me!"

 

"My kids are listening to music that has questionable lyrics.  Instead of monitoring what they listen to and discussing why I disapprove, I'll have the state put stickers on them in a set of random quality controls because of what some Christians do not like!"

 

"My kids are fat.  Instead of making them go out and play, I let them load up on soda, chips, ho-hos, etc.  I need to sue the companies and fast food restaurants for making my children fat."

 

"My kids surf the internet.  Instead of monitoring what they look at by putting in parental controls, I'll let them roam free and if they get done up the butt by a pedophile, I need the state to control that so it won't happen."

 

The citizens of the US need to get off their asses and f***ing be assertive parents, for f***'s sake instead of having the ever growing nanny state doing everything for them because they're too goddamned lazy to see what their children are involved in.  The idea that people actually have to be assertive rather than sit back and consume, consume and f***ing consume must be repulsive to most Americans.

 

And hey, "majority", how's these apples?

If there is a bedrock principle of the 1st amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -- Justice Brennan, TX vs Johnson 1989

"My holier-than-thou attitude got old a long time ago, and people have stopped taking me seriously. But rather than go away and try to do something good for society, I like to come on this message board and recycle cliched stereotypes such as 'all Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, consume-aholics' so that I can feel better about myself. I haven't had an original thought in years but that's alright because I just paste stuff from other websites and pretend like I said it. Whatever propoganda the liberal websites are pushing this week is my Gospel."

 

:puke

[SuperSteve]

Its still f***ing gross.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Yet when this is struck down, people will blame the court.  No, blame those who passed and signed a bill that clearly does not meet constitutional muster in its disdain for the lives of women.

 

When the grandstanding president and congress want to really ban a medical procedure, they will include a provision for the life of the woman.  Since they won't, it is a fair observation that they care far more for scoring grandstanding points in an election season than in actually passing a law that protects women's lives that would then pass constitutional muster.

What you say is true, but the reality is that it's not going to change. When you refer to the President in these cases you are talking about both Clinton & Bush so it is an aspect of government today that crosses party lines.

 

So on the fact of that reality the net effect is that on some of the most important social issues in America nothing gets done. Recent USSC decisions are rendering these laws for the most part useless. So the time & money that goes into them is a complete waste. In an ideal world Congress would respect to the USSC and follow their guidelines. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where members of Congress answer to their constituents first & foremost & not all constituents think alike or are in line with USSC thinking. So the net effect is the system appears broke & the greater polarization occuring in the US on issues is making things worse.

 

With reality being what it is the proper response of the court should be to divert the matter to the states. I would argue that any decision by the USSC of a narrow margin like 5-4 should ultimately end up in diverting the matter to states. Of course cases like Guantanamo are Federal matters where that is not an option.

[JUGGERNAUT]

On the subject of line-item veto those powers were granted & then taken away but the issue remains in debate. The trend in recent years I believe is that more states are granting this power to governors. It's obvious as to why. There is a cost to drafting local legislation. More states are operating in the red & have no choice but to do what they can to minimize costs. Granting this power to governors is one of the ways to do that.

 

This is the part of the Federal budget deficit that many people are unaware of.

It came to light recently in IL when the gov attempted to borrow millions from the French to offset part of IL budget deficit. The state of IL would have had to pay 18 million a year to a French bank for many yrs. I do not remember the total amount.

Now of course when a state runs a budget deficit it doesn't stop paying people. What happens is that the money is borrowed from the Fed & the Fed deficit grows. There are limits to all this of course & at some point states have to cut expenditures or raise taxes.

 

What is still being attempted in IL is bringing to light a new angle on the Federal deficit. It's always been considered money we owe to treasury bond holders. But given the terms of these bonds that's always been interpreted as money we owe ourselves. It would be like the Yakuza borrowing money from you & then you try to

collect. But now that some states are securing loans with overseas banks the Federal deficit is taking on a much more dangerous face because that's debt that must keep up with timely payments. So it's being transformed from debt we owe ourselves to debt we owe to others. Not a good thing at all.