I am a member of the worst coed softball team in San Diego. Some of my teammates play for fun, some of us play to win, most of us argue.
We are unanimous in only one arena - losing - every game we play. We usually lose the old fashioned way -- by sucking. Though our most recent loss represents a diversification of our losing ways; disqualified for too few women.*
The ump stuck by the rules of the league; unmoved by our arguments, complaints, excuses, tantrums and cries. He interpreted the rules and dropped the forfeit hammer down. Game over. Until next week.
In a patently political gambit, John McCain recently pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene versus Bush as one of the worst decisions in the court's history. Among others labeling the decision as an astonishing case of judicial activism, is Citizen Voices blogger Trina Boice. She is clear and succinct in advocating her position:
"Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to grant terrorists the same privileges as U.S. citizens. Judicial activism continues to grow around the country, allowing judges to play politics, circumvent the lawmaking process and assume the powers of legislating. Does that bother anyone else or am I still the freak here? The Constitution is threatened when judges change the definition of social institutions and reinterpret approved laws in order to reflect their own policy preferences."
Venturing an answer to Trina's question: you're no freak, Trina. You simply do yourself a disservice by relying on talking points that simplify weighty constitutional arguments. It is worth pointing out that the detainees held at Guantanamo are most certainly guilty of something; be it terrorism, unlawful combat, conspiracy to commit terrorism or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Trina Boice
June 30, 2008 at 04:21 AM
How about that lovely decision the Supreme Court made last week ruling that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who rapes a child? A child? Rape? I'm no expert on the ruling, but that one bothers me a lot. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the majority's logic and said "I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists - predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children - are the epitome ofr moral depravity."
My limited understanding is that the judges thought the death penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment. Your kidding, right? And child rape isn't? Am I just a sore loser on this one?
michael valentine
from spring Valley
June 30, 2008 at 04:58 PM
The Supreme Court has long been the stalwart against politics in the law, until recently.
That a conservative bench is impaneled is beyond question since Gore v. Bush. Conflated with a compliant and or partisan congress and an overreaching president it is a perfect storm for fascism American style.
Chris
June 30, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Hey Trina,
I think Citizen Voices is a great venue for hashing out different opinions and listening to other points of view. I take the things you write seriously and consider the implications of your ideas.
I would be flattered if you did the same - but you seem not to want to engage in a focused, meaningful debate. You raised the issue of terrorists "having the same rights as US Citizens" - I responded that this was an inaccurate, biased claim - you respond by changing the subject to child rape and the death penalty. This is not as radical as your subject shift from the merits of same sex marriage to an accusation of me being a Mormon basher - but it follows a pattern.
I agreed with your early post that there is less of a Red state Blue state divide than people think - that purple is the new red and blue. But pretended civility is no replacement for meaningful dialogue. The refusal to engage fully and honestly with differing opinions is a hallmark of Fox and MSNBC type punditry - Im hoping we can do better here.
Chris
Alma Sove
from Sunny San Diego
June 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Re Michael: I never thought I'd be one of "those" conspiracy-esque people hinting about the New World Order creeping into America. Not sure when exactly the switch was flipped either, but little by little and definitely over the last eight years, I've gained a better understanding of how fascism's roots take hold. I'd have to agree with you. There is (at least in part) prime soil readied for those roots to dig in. Only time will tell how much of the current Sup. Ct's rulings helped fertilize the political atmosphere.
Judges make mistakes, and judges are influenced by their own biases (despite protestations to the opposite effect) but Chris is right. The checks and balances work. Still, this demands individual participation. Fascism only works if citizens agree to be dominated by zealotry.
michael valentine
from spring Valley
June 30, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Hi Alma,
LIke allowing the Patriot Act?
We as a nation of laws, have already been subjected to secret prisons people are held without evidence and without lawyers or rights.
We take foreign citizens off the street in foreign countries, render them hundreds or thousands of miles away and subject them to torture for years while held incommunicado.
In our name, guns have been held to the heads of suspected terrorist's children during interrogations.
So we can be safe.
So we can be safe, they can listen to all our phone calls and monitor our internet usage.
After the towers came down on 911 President Bush stated, "While the terrorist may shake the foundations of our buildings, they can not shake the foundations of our freedom." Ironic considering all the rights that have been shaken to death since then by Bush and his jolly band of lawyers.
Chuck
from Escondido, CA
July 01, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Overall the system works. When you're unhappy with the results or delays you can point fingers at the people involved, from presidents picking lousy judges, to senators confirming lousy judges, to human beings trying hard to be judges who somehow fail to meaure up, but overall the system works. Most people don't have the resources to fight an unformed accusation in the courts, but at least they have the right to do so. If we're ever supposed to believe the administration has caught the people responsible for 9/11 and the other horrors, sooner or later their evidence will have to be subjected to independent scrutiny, and there's no better way to do so than in fair trials, and by giving the accused those same rights to defend themselves.
Judges make hard calls every day, and for every decision there are winners and losers, just like in sports. You can't go through life blaming the judge or umpire for the loss - play a better game or make a better argument.
Candace Suerstedt from Coronado
July 01, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Really thought provoking post Chris. You covered a great number of important points but two of them in particular struck a chord with me. First, "You simply do yourself a disservice by relying on talking points." This statement could apply to a big percentage of the population. I cannot count the number of people who are regurgitating the misinformation they are getting from Fox or two year old internet alerts or their neighbors. If one more person tells me Obama refuses to say the "Pledge of Allegiance," I am going to scream. Let's be reasonable…why would anyone who actually took that stance even think of running for President.
Then you said "It is no great feat to dial up these opinions on the Internet and read them." No kidding…why don't people use the brains they were given and try to inform themselves before they let others tell them how to think. The information is there.
Matthew C. Scallon
July 01, 2008 at 05:34 PM
The whole terror suspects and Magna Carta thing is great and all. Usually, I fall over myself whenever someone mentions the Great Letter, but you buried the lead.
Namely, what's up with the softball leagues in this town? I gave up playing softball in our base softball league, and for the same reason: not enough female players.
I grew up in Chicago, and we had no problem getting female players for any team I played on. Granted, Chicago has different rules (e.g., ground balls stuck in snow drifts count for only one base; what, you don't play in the snow?). And a bigger ball (16" versus 12"). And flexible field requirements (any beer can or piece of cardboard works as a base). And no bat restrictions (if you can swing it, bring it). And no gloves.
That's the problem. Gloves. It takes too much drama to play by ASA rules. If we didn't have enough female players back home, we'd just look for a jogger in the park and ask her if she wanted to play. Chances were she'd say yes, so long as she could get in her laps between at-bats and she didn't play first or third base (no gloves; think about it).
Let's start a Chicago-rules league. I have my Clincher ball sitting in a water bucket in my garage (don't worried; that's what you're supposed to do with it). I'm ready!
Now, what was all that about the Supreme Court? Nevermind.
Davesnot
from Oceanside
July 02, 2008 at 07:24 AM
How dare they give rights to criminals.. I mean.. sure.. they haven't been proven guilty of anything.. but they're obviously guilty.. The US put em in jail.. so they must be guilty.. the US doesn't make mistakes..
Sure.. other countries lie to their citizens.. not ours!.. those guys are probably in pirson because they ate the WMDs just to make W look bad..
Sheesh.. where the hell are we living nowadays when people belive in hanging someone before the trial?
Ya know what.. terrorist or not.. they are in prison.. what's the harm in accusing them of something and trying them for it?? No?? Is that gonna foster terrorism?? to accuse them of it??
God Bless America.. That good old loving God.. loves us best.. so there.
