Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature

It is an opinion. Hardly expert. See post #34.
 
Yes, it's a matter of expertise. The dean of a prestigious law school's opinion carries more weight than an adjuct professor. A Supreme Court Justice's opinion carries more weight than a federal judge at the trial level. The same in medicine and any other academic profession. I don't know why that's surprising.

And you never answered my question about in which journal the article appeared. Some law reviews only accept articles from very distinguished legal scholars. Anyone licensed can get a bar journal article published. Many publications are no more than propaganda for a particular political agenda. I suspect that this particular publication is the former.
 
sallylou said:
Yes, it's a matter of expertise. The dean of a prestigious law school's opinion carries more weight than an adjuct professor. A Supreme Court Justice's opinion carries more weight than a federal judge at the trial level. The same in medicine and any other academic profession. I don't know why that's surprising.

And you never answered my question about in which journal the article appeared. Some law reviews only accept articles from very distinguished legal scholars. Anyone licensed can get a bar journal article published. Many publications are no more than propaganda for a particular political agenda. I suspect that this particular publication is the former.
Click to expand...

exactly! of course... you can find ANY professional that support ANYBODY'S opinion. It's exactly like a Caucasian man denying he is racist by saying "I know a black friend!" This thread has been very comical so far....
 
It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize the fact that this bill still punishes a PERCEIVED hate crime. Nothing more than a thought crime bill.

Er, Sally, yours was an email version that supposedly came from somebody high up.
 
kokonut said:
It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize the fact that this bill still punishes a PERCEIVED hate crime. Nothing more than a thought crime bill.

Er, Sally, yours was an email version that supposedly came from somebody high up.
Click to expand...

humor us - why don't you find anybody with weighty background that supports your concern? You should spend your time on that instead of :blah: some more.
 
kokonut said:
It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize the fact that this bill still punishes a PERCEIVED hate crime. Nothing more than a thought crime bill.

Er, Sally, yours was an email version that supposedly came from somebody high up.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Criteria must be met for the charge of a hate crime to be levied.
 
Yes, the author claimed to have consulted the person. I would have preferred to find an article. I don't have access to the database of law review articles at home. It's expensive. And I don't have the time or inclination to hit the law library. Too far away.

The ACLU was very concerned about the free speech implications. The ACLU finally supported the bill in its final form because of free speech protections. The ACLU is also very defendant-oriented, particularly in the criminal procedural area. The fact that they ultimately supported the bill means that they didn't consider the bill a significant threat to defendant's rights.
 
Back
Top