Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

The Purpose Of The Supreme Court According To Counterpunch

I know...I know..I've been putting my foot in Counterpunch's arse of late. But really, some of the stuff that has been showing up there is deserving. Here's the latest by a PhD no less. First:
The Supreme Court has a very mixed track record when it comes to protecting women.
I had no idea at all that it was the duty of the Supreme Court to protect women. Article III of the US Constitution states:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Yup. Just as I thought. Nothing at all about a duty to "protect women". This woman has a PhD eh?
As a domestic violence advocate, Criminologist, and activist for a decade, I am deeply concerned that the U.S still fails to prioritize women’s safety.
And here I was thinking that the government shouldn't prioritize any particular group's safety but rather provide safety for all it's citizens equally. And besides going strictly by the statistics, if the state was concerned with the safety of citizens most likely to be victimized by anyone, it would be prioritizing the safety of male citizens. But it must be special to be able to guilt trip people by effectively saying "I have a vagina prioritize me!"
Given that globally more women ages 15-45 die from men’s violence than of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined, far more needs to be done to protect women and girls.
I believe I covered the duties of the Supreme Court above. And I believe the jurisdiction of the US ends about 12.1 miles east of Myrtle Beach, SC. and 12.1 miles west of Malibu Beach CA.

Why is it that these liberals who spent so much time talking about imperialism when they lacked the power, now want to extend US jurisdiction worldwide? Oh right, hypocrites.

In 2000, the court overturned part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that allowed women to sue their abusers in federal court.
I don't know the specifics of the case but since I'm anti VAWA (because it disregards nearly half of domestic violence victims, men) I do not care what's gutted from that law.
So, we can sue darn near anyone for anything, just not the people who hurt us most deeply.
I actually think we shouldn't be able to sue for darn near anything.
In 2005, the court ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that a town and its police cannot be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order.
As it would surprise many people that police are also not under any obligation to protect citizens. Look it up. As per the case the Supreme Court decision does not say that the police cannot be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order. It actually makes an argument about whether the law in Colorado created a 14th Amendment right that could be acted upon in a federal court. It also recognized that police often use discretion when enforcing the law. This is why you don't usually get a ticket for jay walking though it is an offense in just about every city in the US.
Jessica Gonzales, now Lenahan, had a permanent restraining order against her husband Simon, who had been stalking and harassing her. Simon was prohibited from seeing her son (not his biologically) and the couple’s three daughters except during specified visitation times
That is a misstatement of the restraining order:
On June 4, 1999, the state trial court modified the terms of the restraining order and made it permanent. The modified order gave respondent’s husband the right to spend time with his three daughters (ages 10, 9, and 7) on alternate weekends, for two weeks during the summer, and, “ ‘upon reasonable notice,’ ” for a mid-week dinner visit “ ‘arranged by the parties’ ”; the modified order also allowed him to visit the home to collect the children for such “parenting time.” Id., at 1097 (majority opinion). [my underlines]
I would take a guess that the underlined portion was what the husband used to scoop the children up. It does not appear to have any time constraints at all.
The court held 7-2 that the Colorado statute did not require that police actually enforce restraining orders.
For the same reasons a police officer may decide to not give you a speeding ticket.
What?! Absolutely insane.
No. No it's not.
In 2014, the court seemed to improve, as it determined in United States v. Castleman that a state law requiring persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, even when it did not involve force, must still surrender their firearms per federal law. In doing so, the court used a broad interpretation of domestic violence, recognizing it as more than physical.
Broad definitions in law are usually not a good idea. In this case it is even worse since there are people who wish to declare that if you say "unkind words" to someone, then you have committed domestic violence. Lastly:
One of the first things a domestic violence advocate knows is that if an abuser is making claims that he intends to hurt his partner, we should go ahead and presume he will at some point act on them.
Him you say? Sometimes a man fi get kuff:
For those who have issues with reading comprehension, let me highlight the important parts: 1) Men account for 1/3 of domestic violence injuries and deaths. When was the last time you heard this from any of the talking heads you listen to?

2) 50% of reported domestic violence is reciprocal. This was illustrated in the Rice video. They were engaged in reciprocal violence.

3) in 70% of single sided violence women were the perpetrators. For the hard of reading this is when men stand around, or sit around, or lay around and allow themselves to be hit.