Also everyone, u don’t know me but am doing fundraising for a close friend of mine who daughter has down syndrome, a sponsored walk in may called the Buddy Walk in DE there is nothing I won’t do to assist my good friend reach there $ goal, so eccentric advert like this lol, if you would be prepared to give a small even tiny donation go to http://www.dsadelaware.org the go to buddy walk then teams and click on team classie cook most won’t but thank you if you even consider this, the site will prob kick me off after reading this

What was your advice below? Read more, think more, talk less? Huh

Yeah, ez, they really put the hammer to him:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/28/delmon-young-could-be-back-with-the-tigers-as-soon-as-tuesday/related/

Unless you tell me that the 1964 CRA both forbids and permits discrimination.

In the cases you cite, the victim’s status as a member of a protected political group has no bearing. Try again. And Rehnquist’s assertion that the 1964 CRA outlawing discrimination based on those groups can now be used to make protection unequal is pretty thin soup.

By the by, there are myriad Constitutional challenges because “hate crime” charges are not elements of the offense but are instead circumstances in extenuation and mitigation, which means that nobody has to prove them, it is up to the Judge. That is unlikely to stand a serious Constitutional ruling, as it violates the 6th AND 14th Amendments.

If “hate crime” is made an element of the offense, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of peers, it will vanish. Such arguments to attempt to prove a defendant’s thoughts won’t get far before the bench.

But hey. It isn’t like the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality of legislation, or so I am told by Harvard Law grads.

What Delmon did was awesome and it shows what a pathetic human being he really is. Hopefully he gets handed a worthy suspension and his previous history should be taken into consideration considering he seems like a bit of a loose cannon.

And the issue on hate crimes was first written by Scalia, not Rehnquist, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul which referenced that “fighting words” are not protected speech. The ‘fighting words’ case is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire – 315 U.S. 568 (1942) written by Justice Murphy. Rehnquist did write Wisconsin v. Mitchell – 508 U.S. 476 (1993) for a unanimous (9-0) court that enhancement based upon the victims race was proper.

Since when does the severity of the crime have anything to do with the victim?

And why would someone never be charged with a hate crime for murdering me, but would be for murdering a politically-identified victim group?

Hardly in keeping with equal protection, despite Rehnquist’s assertions to the contrary.

The rest of the comment is ????? 14th Amendment? Which part? Due process? Privileges and immunities clause? He’s an asshole, pure and simple. You have a right to be an asshole, but states can place enhanced penalties on people based upon the severity of the crime. If the crime is based upon actions which show racial or religious hatred – race and religion being protected classes – then enhanced penalties are proper. Just ask the Supreme Court.

YGBSM.

John Rocker, a**hole that he was, did NOTHING criminal, but made disaparaging remarks some found insulting. Okay, many found insulting.

MLB suspended him for a month, fined him 20 grand (in 1999 dollars), and the Braves sent him to the minors, which Selig admitted was punishment.

And all that is done to Young is the Restricted List?

He (Young) was drunk, and assaulted someone (or so the tale is told) and then went on an anti-semitic tirade to the police.

Now, I think anything that says “hate crime” is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment and is legal horsehockey, but I am talking about MLB’s punishment of this jackass. Which doesn’t seem to match up to precedent.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/former-major-leaguer-dmitri-young-is-unlikely-owner-of-huge-rookie-baseball-card-collection-.html