The views presented on this site in no way reflects those of my employer, family, friends, acquaintances or distant cousins as these generally fall into three categories: the smart ones that agree with me, those that tolerate me because of my wit, charm, great intellect and modesty, and those who think that I'm a raving wingnut who's one Kennedy away from going medieval on the next vegan moonbat that barks.
I do not do links for the sake of reciprocity. I link only to those sites that I read and I only read RSS feeds. Feel free to send me a link to your site and I'll take a look. If I like it, and if you have a feed, I'll add you to my blogroll.
Copyright Statement
Any original material is the intellectual property of the author and is not to be used without permission, other than normal Internet journalistic practices of extracting portions of a post, acknowledging the author and providing link-backs to the source post.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently gave a speech in which he defended his citation of foreign law in a recent court case banning execution of juveniles. He said that allowing U.S. courts to consider the views of other judges - including international jurists - while making a decision is a responsible practice.
One wonders how far this will go. For instance, best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci is standing trial in Italy on charges that she defamed Islam in a recent book:
In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom." ...
Grasso's ruling homed in on 18 sentences in the book, saying some of Fallaci's words were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith."
Given the liberal make-up of our judiciary, are they to consider the thought-police practices of ultra-politically correct Europe?
Blog post #5104 in category
Legal System
posted 25 May 05
