I'm not, actually, and your inability to distinguish my defending the constitution, which affords due process to everyone under it's jurisdiction, which includes a green card holder, and 'supporting terrorism', speaks to your ignorance. Your sentiment is a sibling of those mobs who jump to conclusions and lynch someone without due process. Not precisely the same, but a distant cousin of the same sentiment.
Thus, you are falling prey to the time-honored tradition of conflating legal principle with personal endorsement, which is a logical fallacy. But let’s not pretend this is about protecting anyone’s children; it’s about defending the Constitution from the kind of emotional, reactionary authoritarianism that history has never looked kindly upon.
See, j-mac, You don’t get to pick and choose when due process applies based on your personal disgust. The law either stands on principle, or it crumbles under the weight of political hysteria. And as for “activist judges,” that’s just the term you use when the courts rule against your preferred brand of government overreach. You might be comfortable with the executive branch wielding unchecked power to silence dissent, but the Supreme Court--yes, even this one--has been quite clear that the First Amendment does not hinge on whether speech makes you uncomfortable.
If the government has a case, let them prove it in court. If your position were as airtight as you pretend, you wouldn’t need to smear legal process as a favor to “terrorist supporters”--you’d simply let the law speak for itself. But you won’t, because deep down, you suspect that when the matter is actually tested, the government’s case may not be the ironclad inevitability you desperately wish it to be. And that, more than your overwrought fearmongering, is why this fight matters. However, somehow, I suspect this concept will go right over your head, right?
www.law.cornell.edu
www.newsweek.com
