Thursday’s Thoughts, On Wednesday

Thought #1

There’s something wrong with an employer which takes applications, but disqualifies anyone currently unemployed. I wonder who the moron is that came up with this idea.

If you’re unemployed, don’t even bother applying. That’s a message some job seekers are seeing as they look for their next paycheck.

It’s not the kind of message Peter May expected to see on a job listing. But when he visited the Web site for “The People Place”, an Orlando-based recruiter, there it was, in all caps, bold type: “No unemployed candidates will be considered at all.”

I definitely won’t be purchasing any Sony Ericsson products in the future. If they aren’t going to consider candidates who actually need jobs, I am not going to spend my money on any of their consumer electronics when I actually need something.

Thought #2

Nancy Pelosi says that government policy should be dictated by “The Word”. The same woman who voted to allow partial-birth abortions now says we must all answer to “The Word Made Flesh”. Has Nanny State Nancy been enlightened? Has she seen the light? That, my friends, is the great mystery.

Thought #3

Justice Sotomayor has already proven her appointment to the Supreme Court was a huge mistake.

In a case before the court pertaining to Miranda rights, the Court ruled 5-4 that suspects must implicitly invoke their right to remain silent.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”

The court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting after nearly three hours of questioning thus gave up his right to silence, and the statement could be used against him at trial.

In the case about Miranda rights, suspect Van Chester Thompkins remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after reading and being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. He neither acknowledged that he was willing to talk nor that he wanted questioning to stop.
But detectives persisted in what one called mostly a “monologue” until asking Thompkins whether he believed in God. When asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins looked away and answered, “Yes.”

The statement was used against him, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.

So what did Justice Sotomayor have to say about this?

“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” wrote Sotomayor. “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.” She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Suspects must invoke their right to remain silent? Duh! Of course they do. Miranda states, “You have the right to remain silent”. If you don’t, well, anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

Hello!?! Dumbass! If you choose to remain silent, you must… How do I write this in a way you’ll understand? I guess I’ll just come out and write it. If you choose to remain silent, then keep your frickin’ mouth shut. Don’t say a word. Don’t mumble, don’t stutter, don’t utter one word. Silence is just that. SILENT.

The scariest part about this decision is that four U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) actually think the right to remain silent is automatically implied by the reading of Miranda. They actually think suspects are being treated unfairly if they don’t remain silent. Does the oath for members of the Supreme Court include the right to remain stupid?

Stop Squawking Already!

Yes, as a matter of fact I am still busy.

Many people are squawking today about the Supreme Court decision to knock down a major portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. People are under the assumption that this decision will open the doors to corporate corruption by allowing corporations, unions and other groups to donate directly to political campaigns.

Do these people not realize that the same money was already reaching the candidates as it was funneled from those same corporations through everday citizens directly to their political campaigns?

What morons. Watch this video about campaign finance reform from October of 2008.

So stop squawking already. McCain-Feingold was a violation of our first amendment rights. The Supreme Court did good with their decision.

The Dangers Of Bench Legislation

One of my biggest pet peeves is when judges attempt to legislate from the bench. Our system of government is set up with checks and balances for a reason, and some people feel that their “cause” is more important than following the normal course of events as our founding fathers defined them.

With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that some organizations are trying to persuade the Supreme Court to apply the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of binding ‘customary international law’, even though the United States has not ratified the CRC.

Amnesty International believes that international law, rather than American law, should be used to make this decision. We have been warning people for some time that this theory could be used to force this treaty upon an unwilling American public. Americans want to retain family-based decision-making and American-made law. The UN Convention Rights of the Child would undermine both of these principles,” constitutional lawyer Michael Farris said.

If the Supreme Court rules that the international laws defined in the CRC are binding on the American people, a vast majority of family laws from virtually every state could be impacted and no longer applicable.

No international law should supersede an American law within the borders of our sovereign nation and our nation’s laws should originate in an American legislative body not from the hammering of a gavel from the bench.

You can read about these cases which could have a long-lasting impact on families across America, at parentalrights.org.