As I’m sure everyone knows, the Supreme Court struck down legislation that prohibited erotic images of anything that appeared to be a minor. As I’m sure you know as well, our Attorney General Ashcroft denounced the court’s decision. Now he is again challenging the court and over 40 years of government policy regarding gun control. (For more info, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49702-2002May7.html) Here is yet more evidence that the political right sees erotic art in any form as more dangerous than lethal weapons. Man, I hate this administration. (I won’t even start to get into that, though.)
On the bright side, in 20 years most of the conservative right should be dead, paving the way for a more liberal America. Too bad it would take Japan 50 years to reach the same stage (they have yet to retract their virtual child pornography law for instance).
quote:
Originally posted by Goobersnotch:
(they have yet to retract their virtual child pornography law for instance).
Well, that might be changed. and not in fifty years either. USA is one of the biggest country in the world, and what happens in the US affects the rest of the world, even Japan (you know, if you throw a stone in a lake, the ripples will spread across the lake). And many will refer to what the Supreme Court in the US decided to do during debates like that, both in Japan and other places.
I can’t locate the Washington Post article anymore, does that newspaper maintain a very active archive?
I think the archive is only for those who pay for an account–I just check there daily for free news.
Anyway, the gist of the story was that Ashcroft was taking the stance that the Constitution’s right to bear arms applies to all Americans under any circumstance (although, to his credit, he did say that some measures should be taken to keep them out of the hands of criminals–of course, the NRA says the same thing, yet whenever any kind of restriction, background check, or waiting period is discussed, they all cry foul) and not just in regard to militias. That doesn’t bother me much, but he told the Supreme Court that he doesn’t think they need to get involved in the legal battle regarding the interpretation of the Constitution on this matter. To me, it sound like he wants people to take his interpretation as fact and doesn’t want the Judicial Branch to step in. In other words, he wants to enforce laws (which is his duty since he’s part of the executive branch) according to his interpretation of the laws and doesn’t want anyone else telling him how the law should be interpreted, which is the rightful duty of the Judicial Branch. So basically he wants to eliminate the check and balance on his authority in this matter.
Plus I hate the whole belief that it’s better to have a gun in every home than some dirty pictures.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe:
That doesn't bother me much, but he told the Supreme Court that he doesn't think they need to get involved in the legal battle regarding the interpretation of the Constitution on this matter. [snip] So basically he wants to eliminate the check and balance on his authority in this matter.
Ashcroft has said many things that make it apparent to me that he and Bush think they *run* things run things, instead of just being in charge of one part of the government. He basically wants Congress to leave him alone and let him do whatever the hail he wants, and it doesn't surprise me that he wants the Supreme Court to do the same thing. I think he wants other countries to do whatever he says, too.
I really don't like him. I don't like Bush. I don't like anything about the current administration at all.