September 27, 2013
Judge Weinstein quickly responds to Second Circuit reversal of his below-mandatory-minimum child porn sentencingThanks to How Appealing here, I have just seen that Judge Jack Weinstein wasted little time in responding to the ruling yesterday by the Second Circuit in US v. Reingold (discussed here) that Judge Weinstein had erred when sentencing a young defendant who distributed child pornography below the applicable five-year mandatory minimum term based on the Eighth Amendment. Judge Weinstein's response appears in this nine-page Memorandum and Order, which gets started this way:
This case exemplifies the sometimes unnecessary cruelty of our federal criminal law. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered — pursuant to statutes it held binding — that defendant’s prison term be increased substantially; another 30 months must now be added to the term reluctantly imposed by the district court of 30 months in a prison medical treatment center — an additional period likely to be spent in the general prison population. See United States v. Reingold, No. 11-2826-cr (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2013) (order reversing in part as to sentencing and remanding); United States v. Reingold, No. 11-2826-cr (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2013) (opinion of the court remanding for resentencing). Such a long sentence is unjust.
After release from prison, C.R. will be severely restricted as a convicted sex offender in where, and with whom, he can live, work and recreate for up to life. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911, 16915(a)(1), 16915(b); N.Y. Correct. Law § 168-h(1); Judgment of Conviction, United States v. C.R., No. 09-CR-155 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2011), ECF No. 157; cf. Michael Schwirtz, In 2 Trailers, the Neighbors Nobody Wants, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 2013, at A1 (discussing the lack of permissible, housing for “sex offenders”).
The effect of harsh minimum sentences in cases such as C.R.’s is, effectively, to destroy young lives unnecessarily. The ancient analog of our modern destruction of youngsters by cruel, unnecessarily destructive and self-defeating, long minimum prison sentences, was physically sacrificing them to ancient gods for the supposed benefit of society. Leviticus 18:21 (King James ed.) warns, “[T]hou shalt not let any of thy [children] pass through the fire to Molech.” See W. Gunther Plaut et al., The Torah: A Modern Commentary, 149 n.1, 883 (1981) (ancient human sacrifice of children); Maimonedes Mishneh Torah, 116 (Rabbi Eliyahu trans. with commentaries and notes, Moznaim Publ’g. Corp. 2001) (“[A] person who gives his descendants to Molech” is executed by stoning.). And a pillar of major religions is the banning of the sacrifice of children. Genesis 22:12-13; see Plaut et al., at 149 (“[R]eligion . . . rejects the sacrifice of a [mortal] son . . . .”). Yet we continue using the criminal law to unnecessarily crush the lives of our young.
An important duty of an Article III district judge is to prevent injustices by the government in individual cases. See United States v. Ingram, 2013 WL 2666281, at *14 n.9 (2d Cir. June 14, 2013) (Calabresi, J. concurring) (“[W]e judges have a right — a duty even — to express criticism of legislative judgments that require us to uphold results we think are wrong.” (footnotes and citations omitted)); Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., A Trial Judge’s Freedom and Responsibility, 65 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, 1303 (1952) (“clearly ethical in its nature”); Jack B. Weinstein, Every Day Is A Good Day for A Judge To Lay Down His Professional Life for Justice, 32 Fordham Urb. L. J. 131, 155 (2004) (“The judge must decide: does this law violate the essence of my duty to . . . humanity.”). Where, as here, in the opinion of a ruling appellate court, the trial court has exceeded its power, at least the matter has been brought to the government’s and public’s attention, so that in due course, in our caring democracy, future injustices of this kind will be avoided.
Recent related post:
September 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Weinstein quickly responds to Second Circuit reversal of his below-mandatory-minimum child porn sentencing:
For purposes of demonstrating why judges cannot be trusted with 100% authority over sentencing, the willful, insolent, defiant, obdurate, self-adoring Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York is the gift who keeps on giving.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2013 11:38:26 AM
With all due respect to my dissenting colleagues, Kudos and super congratulations to the Honorable Jack Weinstein, a brilliant and honorable judge. In his response to the Second Circuit, he has written a superb opinion summarizing the case against mandatory minimum sentences that continue to destroy the lives of so many young persons. Long life to this wonderful judge!! May he continue to be guided by the admonition in Deuteronomy 16:20: "Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue."
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Sep 27, 2013 12:27:52 PM
/”The ancient analog of our modern destruction of youngsters by cruel, unnecessarily destructive and self-defeating, long minimum prison sentences, was physically sacrificing them to ancient gods for the supposed benefit of society. Leviticus 18:21 (King James ed.) warns, “[T]hou shalt not let any of thy [children] pass through the fire to Molech.” .. And a pillar of major religions is the banning of the sacrifice of children. Genesis 22:12-13; .. Yet we continue using the criminal law to unnecessarily crush the lives of our young.”\
The level of pedantic equivocation in this “analog[y” is stunning, whereby Judge Weinstein matches
ritual, pagan infant murder (infanticide) with a 5-year mandatory term and
registration limitations (the minimum sentence).
Wrongly, Judge Weinstein seeks neither to adequately defend the downward departure, nor to intelligently convince his
elected representatives to change the law, but first attempts to subvert it judicially, and now decries the
just accountability being applied to his sabotage.
A competent bit of logical persuasion would have been tolerable; sadly to the contrary, the childishness of Weinstein’s reasoning ranks high amongst fellow peons.
Posted by: Adamakis | Sep 27, 2013 1:46:43 PM
Why the uncritical adulation?
Could it be that you cannot materially support the errors and callow casuistry of your ideological brother?
Do the ends justify the means for you herein, or do specifically admire Judge Weinstein’s argumentation?
Will you specifically defend his ‘plead [for] cause’? Proverbs 31:10 (King James ed.)
Posted by: Adamakis | Sep 27, 2013 1:50:08 PM
The effect of harsh minimum sentences in cases such as C.R.’s is, effectively, to destroy young lives unnecessarily.
As said the Prussians: Suum cuique
Posted by: visitor | Sep 27, 2013 2:18:13 PM
When you read the facts in the case as detailed at length by the Second Circuit, it is hard to characterize what Judge Weinstein is doing as pursuing justice.
Instead, it is clear that Judge Weinstein does not think that a 19-year old with above average intelligence who has molested his younger sister on three separate occassions and who voluntary went to a file sharing website for the express purpose of getting and sharing child pornography deserves the five-years in prison that Congress has decided should be the minimum for offenders like Mr. Reingold. If he feels that way, he should hang-up his black robe and run for office.
I for one think that the guideline sentence as calculated by the US Attorney's office (approximately 14 years) more closely resembles justice than the 30-month sentence originally imposed by Judge Weinstein.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 27, 2013 2:49:44 PM
Michael R. Levine --
Let me ask you this: Suppose a hard line judge, just as sincere in his beliefs as Weinstein, had given the defendant a sentence two and a-half years above the statutory maximum, on the theory that this was needed to send a message to the cyberworld, and to protect the next victim.
Would you regard that judge as a hero of the law, given his courage and willingness to "stand up"?
I certainly wouldn't, and it has nothing to do with my view of CP.
If we can't trust judges to follow the law, what is left of law? Didn't Thomas More tell us?
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2013 3:17:07 PM
To my dissenting colleagues:
I praise Weinstein because he is making the best case against mandatory minimums in possession of C.P. cases--even though he has been reversed. Though reversed, he is not unbowed. He displays enormous courage. He shows how unjust the mm's are as applied here. His opinion does not defy the Second Circuit's reversal; it respectfully restates the case against m.ms in a more forceful way. He went out on a limb, and has been reversed. So be it. Brandeis and Holmes went out on limbs in many dissenting opinions. But we remember their dissents and not the majority opinions.
I do agree with Adamakis that the judge's analogy to sacrificing children to "Moloch" was over the top. But I prefer to see the analogy as Shakespearean metaphor. E.g., "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." Also over the top, would you not agree? And yet we all understand what is being said and why. The same is true here.
To my friend, Bill Otis, I send greetings. Sure judges should follow the law, but they can also try to distinguish precedent. The Eight Amendment is law; and it trumps statutes. So Weinstein made an argument. The argument was rejected. That's all that happened.
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Sep 27, 2013 4:51:56 PM
Hi Michael --
I always enjoy hearing from you. (Some of my best friends are defense lawyers, but please don't tell anyone; it will ruin my reputation).
Here's where we part ways: You say that Weinstein made an argument, and I agree. But it's not up to judges to make arguments; it's up to the parties. Judges are there to follow the law, and the law was unambiguously against him.
If Jack Weinstein feels this strongly against MM's, he should do what my friend Paul Cassell did: Leave the bench and become an advocate. Paul also had major heartburn about MM's, and has spoken out against them. But he's now in private life, having become a law professor at Utah and a leading spokesman for victims' rights.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2013 5:33:49 PM
Bill, you write "Here's where we part ways: You say that Weinstein made an argument, and I agree. But it's not up to judges to make arguments; it's up to the parties. Judges are there to follow the law, and the law was unambiguously against him."
I did say that Weinstein made an argument. I should have said that Weinstein adopted the argument that defense counsel made (though, frankly, I only assume that defense counsel made the argument). But I understand your point. The good judge may well be thinking of retiring soon; he's surely getting on in years. But, as for me, I hope he stays as long as he is able--I like voices crying in the wilderness. Every so often, somebody listens.
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Sep 27, 2013 5:57:11 PM
When you say you like voices crying in the wilderness, believe me -- as one of the minority conservatives who comment on Doug's blog, I HEAR YOU BIG TIME.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2013 6:02:16 PM
This case is getting some attention at Volokh Conspiracy.
Someone with "20+ years as a state prosecutor" [CockleCove] had some interestng things to say about the case a couple years back her:
I respect Prof. Levine's comments, but "enormous courage" is not quite how I would state these acts of a federal judge guaranteed lifetime tenure.
Posted by: Joe | Sep 27, 2013 6:41:07 PM
I too respect Michael. But you are right on the mark in saying that, "'enormous courage' is not quite how I would state these acts of a federal judge guaranteed lifetime tenure."
And it goes beyond just lifetime tenure. In the circles in which Weinstein travels, an opinion like this makes him a hero. How much "courage" does it take for him to get a standing ovation at the next ACLU convention for being "Jurist of the Year" or whatever they call it?
There are people out there to whom child abuse, and filming and watching child abuse, is just no big deal. Maybe they think the world would be slightly better off without it, but the attitude is, "Stuff happens. Let's move on."
I seriously doubt that Weinstein is among them. But that's not the point. The point is that, if law is to mean anything, if people are to have any confidence at all in what the rules and the punishments are, Weinstein's burlesque of "constitutional adjudication" is intolerable. Time to step down.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2013 9:17:01 PM
The writing of Judge Weinstein here is remarkable and is one of the finest pieces I have ever seen in 43 years of practicing law.
Posted by: Liberty1st | Sep 27, 2013 10:29:26 PM
Something I can agree with Joe on--courage Weinstein's opinion is not.
What I find remarkable is that Weinstein cannot bear to give us all the whole story. By not having the intellectual honesty to give us the whole story, Weinstein wrongly impugns the criminal justice system, something we all rely on to preserve order and public safety.
On the merits, does this guy deserve a lifetime of living on the sex offender registry, with hair trigger violations? Probably not. But we don't know that's going to happen, any more than some victims of appalling juvenile crimes knew that their tormentors were not going to have a chance at parole.
I can understand a little play in the joints for a judge to bend the rules in cases of obvious injustice. What I can't understand is this grandstanding.
Posted by: federalist | Sep 27, 2013 10:46:26 PM
Bill Otis: "Suppose a hard line judge, just as sincere in his beliefs as Weinstein, had given the defendant a sentence two and a-half years above the statutory maximum, on the theory that this was needed to send a message to the cyberworld, and to protect the next victim."
I agree with everyone's disagreement with Judge Weinstein. Blithering. Lawless reliance on religious text. Personal feelings trump the rule of law (please, Judge, persuade a legislature of your personal feelings, as the rest of us must; do not impose them from the bench.), biased, etc. etc.
My challenge to your statement is about something else. You are a Justice on the Supreme Court. Your above statement is included in the instruction of a judge to a jury, in the sentencing phase or in his written opinion imposing sentence.
Do we agree that the Fifth Amendment imposes some procedural due process rights? Is one of them the right to a fair hearing? Is this a fundamental right?
Is it fair to punish a defendant to intimidate a future offender he has never met, over whom he has no influence, and who has not yet committed a similar crime, or may never do so?
I have never seen this defense used anywhere. However it makes it unlawful to impose the death penalty for general deterrence and is a gift I am giving to the defense bar. Any utterance about general deterrence should result in a motion for a mistrial, and disqualify that judge from the rehearing. The defense bar has never taken one of my free offerings, despite their compelling if not compulsory nature (other example? The sole cruelty in the death penalty is the set date. Even terminal patients and their families are spared that knowledge in hospice care.)
If such an argument is ever adopted, it would demonstrate my commitment to accuracy, and not just to the prosecution of vicious predators.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 28, 2013 2:15:31 AM
Sometimes laws are just plain wrong and need to be rewritten, like the MM's.
I hope Judge Jack stays in long enough to see that happen, he has the courage to say what he believes and he understands that MM's serve only to destroy lives, they serve no other purpose.
Posted by: kat | Sep 28, 2013 10:10:48 AM
@Supremacy Claus:"Is it fair to punish a defendant to intimidate a future offender he has never met, over whom he has no influence, and who has not yet committed a similar crime, or may never do so?"
If we are going to embrace a full utilitatian approch to sentencing (ie. 123D (execute jaywalkers who happened to have been declared "Habitual Violent Offenders")), the punishment of an offender so that others are detered, and thus favorising the Greater Good by reducing crime, could be envisioned.
Posted by: visitor | Sep 28, 2013 11:48:24 AM
"Sometimes laws are just plain wrong and need to be rewritten, like the MM's."
Individual judges have no authority whatever to re-write laws. Nor did Weinstein do so or claim to do so. He purported to strike it down as unconstitutional, which is different from re-writing it.
"I hope Judge Jack stays in long enough to see that happen, he has the courage to say what he believes..."
As has been pointed out, it had absolutely nothing to do with courage, unless "courage" has been re-defined to mean "receiving bouquets from every pro-CP organization out there," which is admittedly quite a few.
As for saying what he believes, fine, have at it. He has the same free speech rights as the rest of us. What he does not is the right to play king, displacing democratically enacted law with his personal views.
"..and he understands that MM's serve only to destroy lives, they serve no other purpose."
Actually, they serve to impose punishment on people who help make the market for this stuff, and thus -- thankfully -- to help shrink that market.
P.S. I guess the three judges on the higher court are just too stupid to understand the barbarity of MM's, is that it?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 28, 2013 12:37:36 PM
You are always so quick to pull the trigger-
I didn't say that Judge Jack claimed to rewrite the law. What I said was that sometimes laws are just wrong and need to be rewritten.
And as to his having the courage, yes, I say courage, to take a stand on an issue...well...some have the balls to do it and some don't.
And as far as "the market for CP" do you realize that alot of those getting thrown in prison, are there because they viewed the same old "FREE" videos on the internet, videos that apparently never get taken down.
As for the higher court judges, maybe they can visit OZ and get some courage too.
Posted by: kat | Sep 28, 2013 3:24:29 PM
1. "I didn't say that Judge Jack claimed to rewrite the law. What I said was that sometimes laws are just wrong and need to be rewritten."
You said it in the context of Weinstein's having, for all practical purposes, rewritten the law to splice in an exemption for those he sees as young and "vulnerable." Nice try at hair-splitting, though.
2. "And as to his having the courage, yes, I say courage, to take a stand on an issue..."
I take stands on lots of issues, and I do it signing my name. But I haven't noticed your giving me a lot of credit for "courage." Are you planning to?
"...well...some have the balls to do it and some don't."
Speaking of which, would you mind signing yours?
3. "And as far as 'the market for CP' do you realize that a lot of those getting thrown in prison, are there because they viewed the same old 'FREE' videos on the internet, videos that apparently never get taken down."
The defendant in this case bartered in order to get the porn he wanted, so it wasn't free. It had a price.
4. "As for the higher court judges, maybe they can visit OZ and get some courage too."
And maybe you could show how their analysis was incorrect, although it seems you don't even try.
Finally, this stuff about Weinstein's "courage" is hilarious. As Joe has pointed out, he has a totally safe job and salary, and what poses a "danger" to him is the boatload of fawning tributes he'll get, just like yours. I can't wait for the New York Times to chip in.
"Courage" my foot. Give it a rest.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 28, 2013 4:53:34 PM
""..and he understands that MM's serve only to destroy lives, they serve no other purpose." "
"Actually, they serve to impose punishment on people who help make the market for this stuff, and thus -- thankfully -- to help shrink that market."
In this instance, by market, I assume the common usage of the term, i.e., that he exchanged something of value, (i.e., money) for the images.
If that is the case, yes throw the book at him.
If he did not pay or willfully search explicitly for the images (the burden of proof should be on the government to prove this), then I would challenge the receipt and possession charges as everyone has files on their computer that they did not knowingly receive or have knowledge of, i.e., "cookies" and other files that most users have no knowledge of.
Again, I didn't read this case. However, the use of electronic files for images should require the government to not merely show receipt and possession, but intent. You do not count the number of electrons that enter your possession (domicile), do you, and how they are arranged?
I think the "market" rationale by government is mostly a POS strawman argument.
You are, of course, and expert in this area.
Posted by: albeed | Sep 28, 2013 7:42:49 PM
"Again, I didn't read this case."
Well, albeed, that's kinda the whole problem.
P.S. But don't feel bad. Weinstein doesn't read the Constitution. He thinks that the job of a judge is to be an advocate for a cause, rather than to decide "cases and controversies."
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 28, 2013 8:33:50 PM
Most people today call Rosa Parks courageous. She went against the norms of the time she lived in and became another voice to protest something that was wrong. People at the time called her ?? My guess is they really didn't call her courageous. She says she was just tired.
I think Judge Weinstein was courageous. He is going against the norms and defying the current law and thoughts of the day because he believes something is wrong. I'm sure there are people who disagree with his actions. Whatever you believe the fact there is a discussion about it is progress.
Posted by: athought | Sep 28, 2013 8:37:13 PM
Rosa Parks stood a good chance of getting lynched.
Does Jack Weinstein stand a chance of getting lynched? Wake up. What he has a chance of is getting all his liberal friends singing his praises.
Name one single bad thing that is even remotely likely to happen to Weinstein on account of this case. Just one.
"He is going against the norms and defying the current law and thoughts of the day because he believes something is wrong."
Hey, look, I have an idea. Let's have a judge in a non-death penalty state impose the death penalty on a sadistic killer because he "believes something is wrong."
Would you say he is being "courageous?"
"I'm sure there are people who disagree with his actions."
Yup. Those people are called "the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."
"Whatever you believe the fact there is a discussion about it is progress."
Only there has been a raging discussion about this for at least the two and a-half years since Weinstein originally imposed the sentence, and -- on the general subject of mandatory minimums and child pornography -- well before that.
Have you been living in a cave?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 28, 2013 9:18:58 PM
Simply put, it doesn't take that much courage for a long serving judge to write an opinion. It is not just that it is popular in some quarters. It is overall an opinion in one case. What is going to happen? It isn't exactly a Southern judge writing one against segregation or something. It isn't even a young judge just starting out. He's an old lion and this is par for the course for him.
federalist agreeing with me might however be sign of Armageddon. I am fearful now.
Posted by: Joe | Sep 28, 2013 11:30:32 PM
I agree with Bill on the principle even if I disagree with him on the substance. The law is the law and the judge should follow the law while it is the law because if the judge cannot respect the law he disagrees with why should anyone else?
Posted by: Daniel | Sep 29, 2013 1:38:15 AM
Visitor: "If we are going to embrace a full utilitatian approch to sentencing (ie. 123D (execute jaywalkers who happened to have been declared "Habitual Violent Offenders")), the punishment of an offender so that others are detered, and thus favorising the Greater Good by reducing crime, could be envisioned."
Yes. Visitor, picture the lawyer traitor hierarchy has been eradicated several times over. Lawyer traitors are excluded from all benches, legislative seats, and policy positions until they are no longer dumbasses and traitors from their legal indoctrination.
The public says to the criminal law, end crime, permanently.
Now a Mexican drug cartel fellow has had hundreds of people killed.
The guy who ordered this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEDIY34-Ck (open only if you want to be horrified. But if you do, thank the vile Mexican lawyer traitor for protecting the criminal.)
He is caught jaywalking as a third offense. He is executed on the spot, at the police station after a 5 minute hearing in which a video tape of jaywalking is played. Just shoot him in the head, and take his organs for transplant. That saves 6 other people, partially payment for his debt to society.
We have just saved hundreds of future victims. By eradicating this one man natural disaster, we added a $billion to the economy of our friend, Mexico, and greatly relieved his family and friends who were terrorized by him. We have also put him out of his suffering from irritable mood and perpetual paranoia. Everyone is ahead including the executed criminal.
Contrast that to the protection of this bird by the vile feminist lawyer traitor to our country. We will have to eradicate this internal traitor before having at the criminals. It is quite evident nothing of the sort will ever happen without a violent direct action movement to eradicate the lawyer internal enemy. That will happen after a major terror attack. I suggest it happen before then, and we prevent the major terror attack. 9/11 was entirely the fault of the lawyer traitor profession, including the last step, where the passengers carried out the duty to retreat imposed by the lawyer traitor on the nation. 9/11 would have been impossible on the airlines of other nations, where men have not been castrated by the vile feminist lawyer, and there is a duty to attack the criminal, not to retreat. This vile feminist lawyer traitor cancels the orders of our warriors, all the way up to the four star level, when Mullah Omar was saved by an American lawyer. This vile commissar will never be persuaded or removed except by force.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 29, 2013 1:53:41 AM
Visitor: You may be puzzled. Why does the lawyer traitor impose such a waking nightmare on his own country?
The Rent Seeking Theory explains explains all anomalous lawyer policies. The criminal generates lawyer jobs, and must be protected by even prosecutors. The prosecutor will destroy anyone engaging in self help instead of rewarding people who kill criminals at the scene. Prosecutors are criminal lovers, and owe their living to the criminal, not to the public.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 29, 2013 2:05:11 AM
Rosa Parks and her ilk caused massive social pathologies in the black community. Prior to this noisome movement, blacks had very slight increases in rates of pathology over whites. Slightly higher unemployment, crime victimization, bastardy rates, poverty, school failure, etc. Since these race whores have been busy, those have exploded, including an excess of 5000 of murders of black males. What the KKK took 100 years to achieve, the lynching of 5000 people, the vile feminist lawyer has orchestrated to happen every one year.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 29, 2013 2:09:47 AM
S.C. you write "Rosa Parks and her ilk caused massive social pathologies in the black community." You've spewed a lot of venom on this blog, but this vile statement is a new low even for you. Every generation there arise a few persons with undaunted courage who step forward to do what's right while the vast majority of us cower in fear. Rosa Parks was one of the few. I hope that when I'm in trouble and world is against me, a Rosa Parks will stand up for me at the risk of her own safety. I know that you and your "ilk" never will.
Posted by: anon4 | Sep 29, 2013 11:44:54 AM
In order to get a law changed somebody has to stand up and make noise about it. The kernel of the argument is that the law is unjust. The reason I brought up Rosa Parks was not because of the danger of her being lynched. I brought up Rosa Parks because it is impossible to refute her stand. But Rosa Parks and Judge Weinstein both refuse to follow what are unreasonable rules. Are there always bad consequences for doing that? Not in Judge Weinstein's case perhaps. Personal safety is not always what defines acts of courage.
It is important to keep the discussion going.
Posted by: athought | Sep 29, 2013 4:22:33 PM
Anon4: I am spewing historical statistics. Black social pathology stats in the 20th Century were very slightly higher than those of whites. After the race whores took over, it rocketed. That included an excess of 5000 murders of black young men a year. What the Klan took 100 years to do, kill 5000 people? It takes the race whore a year to do. That is one of many very harsh outcomes of this movement.
Instead of imposing integration, the law should have ended de jure discrimination, allowing de facto segregation. So, in Mississippi, a third of the population is black. Go ahead, put a sign of "no blacks allowed" in your restaurant window. The restaurant across the street will put one up, "Blacks Welcome." What is the natural, non tyrannically imposed consequence? The discriminatory restaurant has excluded a third of its market. It will go out of business, and people will learn not to discriminate. The lawyer shielded the racist owner by not allowing blacks in competing accommodations. Then the Supreme Court allowed it despite the crystal clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did the same to women, delaying the vote by 40 years, when the Amendment mentions only "persons." They read the minds of the Congress passed, mostly dead. They did a seance. The Fourteenth was to remedy race, not gender discrimination.
I am a 5 minute racist. After 5 minutes race becomes invisible to me, and I only care how the person makes me feel. All "isms" have good justification being folk statistics, 80% correct, 80% of the time. Sure there are famous exceptions, but if you hire a black man to handle your money, and a Jew for your professional basketball team, you deserve the results.
The anti-discrimination laws worked to enrich lawyers. They have spread like weeds, to cover highly privileged populations, such as homosexuals, whose average income is a full standard deviation above that of the population.
Why? To churn litigation and to enrich the rent seeking lawyer profession.
If you were ever excluded from a business, I would welcome you across the street, you bring your friends. I do well, free of the scourge of lawyers.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 29, 2013 4:51:16 PM
I made a comment, plain and simple, you are the one who took it out of context.
As for courage, I don't know whether you are courageous or not, nor do I care. You chose to provide your real name, bully for you. You try to goad people into giving up information, their name, case/ docket #'s, etc, that they obviously prefer to keep private. Guess you have trouble with boundaries.
Maybe you should give it a rest.
Posted by: kat | Sep 29, 2013 8:08:56 PM
1. "I made a comment, plain and simple, you are the one who took it out of context."
That's completely false. I took nothing out of context, and indeed I quoted word-for-word every word of your post. That's the very essence of providing context.
2. "As for courage, I don't know whether you are courageous or not, nor do I care."
Nor did I claim to be courageous, or ask your opinion. I said I sign my name. That takes no courage of which I am aware. It does take a willingness to publicly stand behind, and take responsibility for, what I say, yup. Is there something wrong with that? So why does it bother you? Because of the contrast?
3. "You chose to provide your real name, bully for you."
Trying to make a vice out of openness is kind of a tough road. To each his (or her) own, however.
4. "You try to goad people into giving up information, their name, case/ docket #'s, etc, that they obviously prefer to keep private."
They keep it private for a reason. Did it ever occur to you that the reason is that providing a source to check on their version of the "facts" will show that they're hiding very significant information? Or just making things up favorable to themselves? And they don't want to be found out? Anonymity doesn't further such a goal??
5. "Guess you have trouble with boundaries."
Guess you have trouble with candor.
6. "Maybe you should give it a rest."
Don't think so.
7. And now back to the point: Why is Weinstein being "courageous" when he risks no danger whatever from announcing his views, and "risks," if anything, getting blown kisses from all his left wing buddies?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 1, 2013 3:59:49 AM