Posted by: JDM..... | August 3, 2016

Open letter to SCOTUS

….Imploring Justices to do their jobs…..

I’m not sure what the correct procedure is, so I will proceed in the manner which I sense is appropriate. After 72 years, I suspect I’ve waded through enough nonsense to find the high ground when I need to.

I implore the Court to review the appearance of the “hate crime” on the American judicial doorstep in recent years. I’ll be blunt. This is among the deepest examples of nonsense to which I referred above. It violates the First Amendment in so many ways. It is entirely constructed as one of those “add-ons” to provide extra leverage and with which to apply our fundamental laws of person and property differently at will.

I’m no lawyer, but I’m reasonably bright and “hate-law” doesn’t sound very American or very constitutional to me.

If I am pummeled into pudding, or worse, the resume and mood ring results of my assailant is irrelevant. Whether an assailant abuses me because he wants my stuff, because I beat him to the last parking space, or because he despises everything about me including my genealogy matters not one whit. A man murdered in 2016 is no more or less dead than one who suffered the same fate was long before the concept of using the presumed thoughts and feelings of a defendant to elevate the significance of a spitball to that of .357 magnum came into fashion.

If I had been prosecuted for every antisocial, rude, nasty, terrible thought that I have harbored over my lifetime, even Hell would turn me away when my time comes. Most of us would. The rest are lying. I was taught that behavior was what one had to manage. If my sister and I became embroiled in a name calling melee, which was known to happen from time to time, we were apprised of what was appropriate and what was not. Foul language taught me the taste of Ivory soap. The government taught me nothing, nor should it have

I knew the traditional profanities by first grade, and I learned the broad lexicon of nicknames and put-downs for every nationality and ethnicity by the time I reached high school, and I continued to learn of new ones as I moved around the country over the years. I am not unique.

Despite my internal shortcomings, I have managed to avoid legal entanglements, except for a few adolescent missteps, earned a commission in the USNR, graduated from college, and retired from my eventual career as a counselor at the local medical center. I have fully supported the idea of changing how our social and cultural differences are handled, and we have come a long way. The problem is, we have gone too far and some of the methodology has had paradoxical effects.

The “hate crime” idea has unsavory parallels on many fronts, past and present

Review the “hate crime” trick. It is wrong. It breeds resentment and division rather than tolerance and unity. Condemn it. It’s bad law. Please.


J. Marsh


~-~* * *~-~




  1. G’day! And how the hell are ya?

    Of all the supreme court decisions made that were nonsense, this one is the least noxious. I agree you’d be just as beaten up, whether a hate crime was committed or not, and the sentence would be the same. So what’s the point? And what’s the point of criticizing a meaningless decision?

    Better to criticize the People’s United decision, which opened the floodgates for corporate money to buy pols. We both agree corruption is wrong, but at these obscene levels it would be a surreal comedy if only it were a fiction. Alas, it’s all too true! You have written about the path to riches for a representative of little net worth–I mean that in a financial sense, although it could be taken in the moral sense, too–who spends millions of corporate dollars to get a job that pays $174,000, then retires as a multi-millionaire. What should happen at the supreme court is the repeal of that decision. And it would happen if an appropriate justice were appointed.

    We should also enact term limits for these bozos.

    Before any of this happens, we citizens have to unite as activists, bring cases to the court and acts to the congress, since congress would never bring these things to a vote, nor pass them if there were a vote. It’s naive to think the wealthy would allow their wealth to be voted away, and so the oligarchy continues. We need to vote them out–that’s the real revolution–every two years.

    That’s all I’m sayin’.

  2. 👌👌👌

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s