Our Deceitful Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by WildlifeLover, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. WildlifeLover
    Offline

    WildlifeLover Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    I am really outraged at the Supreme Court's decision to allow the sale and production of animal videos depicting cruelty to animals, particularly dog fighting.

    It's really a sad day in our country that we have Federal Supreme Court Judges that are so sick that they get their only entertainment out of videos of animal cruelty. These judges need to be in a mental institution for the insane rather than running our court system. Everyone but Alito spend most of their day watching child ponography and getting their kick from hard core slut videos in order to get their sick thrills. They should be ashamed of themselves and hang their heads in disgrace. Every American man, woman and child in this country should be embarrassed by the sick mentality of these judges who are encouraging violence, bloodshed and lack of morals and a slap in God's face with their disturbing idea of what is entertainment.

    And pray tell what is the difference between the violence inflicted upon the animals crushed under foot or dogs incited into dog fighting? Any form of deliberate abuse to an animal will always be considered an act of violence toward the animal.

    I truly hope Congress can enact a law that meets their constitutional requirements and in turn will end the sale of any video that depicts or encourages violence toward any animal. If we are going to have effective laws preventing animal cruelty they must be enacted to the point that any form of promotion of that violence will be considered illegal as well.

    Our Supreme Court justices are acting as if paid off by certain interest groups. Many during their lifetime have either worked for or received contributions from large corporations which I feel has influenced their decisions like the one just issued. And I further feel their decision to allow corporations to continue to contribute large sums of money to political candidates is another such example.

    I am sure this is one of the reasons they voted as they did concerning animal violence, probably receiving large sums from NRA and dog fighting groups.

    In closing I must say I admire President Obama when during his State of The Union speech rebuked the Supreme Court for some of their questionable rulings. I hope President Obama will rebuke the court for this outrageous decision as well. Someone needs to do something to bring these justices for life into really knowing how to interpret the document they are sworn to defend and protect.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Nonelitist
    Offline

    Nonelitist BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +183


    I nominate this posting for the Idiocy of the Day Award.

    Who's with me?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,268
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,072
    I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate
     
  4. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,472
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,034
    The law was struck down as it was too broadly written. There was concern that the language of the law could lead to prosecutions of producers of hunting instructional videos, and other items that some people could consider "cruel"

    If congress wants to make the real animal cruelty media illegal they need to construe the law better, target it towards illegal acts in general, not the broad brush of just being cruelty.

    They need to get specific, dog fighting videos, crush videos, etc. spell them out in the law text.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    This may be the only time I ever agree with you.

    I have no patience for ignorant hysterics.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Much as I am loathe to congratulate the Supremes we are stuck with now for anything, I don't think they were wrong in this case WildlifeLover. They took some pains to instruct Congress on how to draft a law that would pass constitutional muster. But the one under review went too far. Under the law, anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

    The court cited the possibility that a hunting magazine would be illegal and that is hardly the edges of this law. What about bullfighting? Horse racing? Hell, what about the Disney movie "Old Yeller"? The standards for humane treatment of animals in movies back in 1957 was not what it is today. Suppose we discovered Spike was intentionally denied water to assist him to act like he was dying?

    What began all this was a 1999 push to ban crush videos (videos in which a human kills a small animal by crushing it for sexual pleasure). In fact, no one has ever been prosecuted on this basis but I am confident that if Congress wants to re-draft this law for this very same purpose, it can do so in a constitutional manner. The actual arrests made under the law were all for dog fighting videos, and deplorable as they may be, they were shot in nations where the practice is legal. Besides, an attempt to outlaw depictions of dogs fighting will put movies like "The Breed", "Cujo", "Independence Day", etc. in a gray legal area.

    Animal lover or no, that's too much restriction on free speech.
     
  7. blastoff
    Online

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,569
    Thanks Received:
    1,713
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,648
    I'm definitely with you, but I'd suggest it might qualify for Idiocy of the Month or even Idiocy of the Year-To-Date Award(s). Heck, it could win the trifecta!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Nonelitist
    Offline

    Nonelitist BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +183
    Let me say this please.

    I had never heard of "crush videos" until this thread. I fully support these videos being illegal and anyone possessing or producing these videos being prosecuted. I cannot understand what would make a person do such a thing and it quite honestly turns my stomach.

    However, the Supreme Court was correct in this case. Congress... please make a law that stops the true abuse.

    Wildlifelover... I agree with you on some of this. However, when you say the Justices enjoy this as entertainment, that is where you turn people off to your cause. A little less extremism and a little more judgement and sensibility will help you alot.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2010
  9. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,054
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Why should the videos be illegal? The harm has already been done. You would have to show that the videos were the main or compelling reason for the acts. Dog fights and cock fights etc have been around for thousands of years, so what exactly is someone who watches the video doing that should be banned?

    Child pornography is illegal on the grounds that the existence of the videos is a major reason for the child abuse and that it causes continuing harm to the child by its existence.

    The same cannot be said of videos of animal cruelty.

    We can't ban things just because we find them distasteful.
     
  10. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,457
    Thanks Received:
    19,869
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,484
    While you may not agree with the 8-1 ruling....what was deceitful about it?
     

Share This Page