Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A woman can hade a great deal more weaponry in her bra than under a head scarf. And I bet this a$$hole judge would have found a woman in contempt if she showed up in court without a bra. Security personnel have ways of keeping the citizens in the courthouse safe from terrorists, in spite of women wearing bras in the courtroom.
You people are bound and determined to dedicate your entire waking lives to punishing Muslims as much as you can possibly get away with, and you don't give a sweet crap about civil rights, the constitution, American freedoms, or anything else, as long as you can continue freely to hate hate hate hate hate, and your buddies with their houses full of guns kill everybody who gets in the way of your hate. Why don't you have the guts to admit that your entire life is motivated by nothing but hate and fear? Why are you, so big and brave, afraid of a 98-pound woman in a scarf?
Funny, I always thought that one of those cherished customs was respect for the free exercise of religion.
Nobody is saying that she can't exercise her backwards religion all that she wants, but not in a courtroom. When anyone steps into a court of law, they need to respect that and follow the rules and etiquette of that court. that is and always has been the custom of the Courts in this country. If the heathen doesn't want to follow the law, then the Court had every right to hold her in contempt of court.
Your whole premise is that we have a Constitutional right not to have to identify ourselves. Your point is blown out the window because a driver's license is a state license and privilege, covered under the 10th amendment. You have no "right" to a driver's license, and the state is free to regulate and legislate the rules by which they will or will not grant you that license.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about with that argument.
If ever an argument to save your rights thismust be it, don't tell me your Founding Fathers said you had no right to drive, this is a clear sign that people are reducing rights of others, rights that you left the shores of the UK to establish.
Protect the likes of this woman and you prtect yourselves.
Nobody is saying that she can't exercise her backwards religion all that she wants, but not in a courtroom. When anyone steps into a court of law, they need to respect that and follow the rules and etiquette of that court. that is and always has been the custom of the Courts in this country. If the heathen doesn't want to follow the law, then the Court had every right to hold her in contempt of court.
You have it ass backwards. The court is obligated to follow the law and the Constitution of The United States. The court has no right to make rules that break the law. Get it? It's an easy concept.
If ever an argument to save your rights thismust be it, don't tell me your Founding Fathers said you had no right to drive, this is a clear sign that people are reducing rights of others, rights that you left the shores of the UK to establish.
Protect the likes of this woman and you prtect yourselves.
What the &$!)) are you talking about? That comment makes absolutely no sense at all.
Read my other posts in this thread and open the link to the court decision on the woman in FL who tried to get a license with a picture of her wearing her face covering. The states can and do regulate who can drive....DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT.
Does anyone here actually understand the US Constitution and pay attention to reality or are you all political science students at some small liberal arts college in Vermont?
What the &$!)) are you talking about? That comment makes absolutely no sense at all.
Read my other posts in this thread and open the link to the court decision on the woman in FL who tried to get a license with a picture of her wearing her face covering. The states can and do regulate who can drive....DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT.
Does anyone here actually understand the US Constitution and pay attention to reality or are you all political science students at some small liberal arts college in Vermont?
You say don't get it, I understand. However when were these laws that you talk of introduced, after the advent of the motor car I'll be bound?
I'm not saying you don't acquiesce to the will of others, that was my point, every day laws are being changed and most of the changes are more restrictive.
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Ah... the perennial separation of church and state controversy. Security is a state matter. To ensure the safety of the "state" (and those living in it) some personal freedoms must be temporarily maligned. The judge (and thereby the state) was not saying she could never wear the head scarf. They simply said it must be removed temporarily. If she didn't want to remove the head scarf (as was already a pre-existing court process) she didn't have to go to the courtroom.
If the judge had said something to the effect of "you may not wear any headgear ever" then I can see an issue. Seems not only lawful, but common sense. No wonder so many people are arguing against it.
How many times do I need to say this? It is not a religious issue, it is a personal dignity and humiliation issue. The woman would no more take off her scarf than the judge's wife would take off her blouse and bra in public view. Because it is something that she, in good faith and conscence, believes to be appropriate attire. It doesn't matter a bit if her sense of personal decorum is motivated by religious faith or not.
What if she had said to the judge "OK, you take off your ceremonial robe, and I'll take off my scarf"? The last time I saw a judge out of his robe in a courthouse, he was wearing a Haley Davidson T-shirt.
What if the judge had demanded that the attorney representing her remove his hairpiece and show the astonished world, for the first time, that he was bald, and threatened him with ten days in jail if he did not comply with his moronic demand. Or if a female attorney is preparing to give her summation to the jury, and she is having a really really bad hair day and is wearing a tasteful and atrractive and natural-looking wig, and the judge orders her to take it off and show her scaggy split ends and roots to the jury. Mistrial.
There is only one reason for the judge's presence in the courtroom. Just one. To ensure that all litigants receive due process according to the Constitution, in an orderly environment. Anything a judge does beyond that is overstepping his bounds.
I was once required to appear in traffic court, and the court appearance date was October 31. A hundred or more people had to take a couple of hours off work that day, to appesr in court. Many of them worked in places where a Halloween costume was required or requested of employees who worked in view of customers, such as cashiers and receptionists. The judge ignored the fact that some people came before him dressed as Star Wars characters or black cats. The Georgia judge would have sent them all to jail. Because he is an a$$hole.
Last edited by jtur88; 12-22-2008 at 09:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
