California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home

[wetibbe]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

Well, let's see here,

The court just ruled that day laborers could gather without a permit, so I'm wondering if this couple can just rely on that ruling.

That said, I don't know why one person should be able to defy the code. There are churches, parks, halls, and other venues available, so why bring such a large gathering to your quiet neighborhood. They said they paid a lot of money for their home, but that's just what it is; a home, not a church or meeting hall.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

The ruling by 9Th circuit court, El Segundo, certainly has me scrambling to understand it. If any of my California friends have any input/insight I would like to hear it.

Here's the deal:

I'm presently researching the courts decision and I am having a dilemma. Judge Milan Dale Smith,Jr. was in the decision denying the Town the right to control illegal aliens day laborers, essentially giving the laborers the right to assemble, solicit work and call out for car washes. Smith is a Bush appointee * Check him on Wikipedia ). His brother, Gordon, is a Republican and U.S. Senator from Oregon.

Normally I can peg the liberal, left, progressive Judges. For example, years back here in Mamaroneck, New York the day labors sued the local police. Federal Judge Colleen McMahon ruled against the police and appointed a watchdog to surveil the police assuring they would no longer disperse the day laborers, ask them questions or stop the contractors from picking them up. She was a blatant Democrat, liberal, progressive. Yes, I wrote to her - no response.

Federal Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker wrote a book, the Tyranny of Tolerance, exposing the left liberal progressives in the Judiciary. That took lots of courage as he was a sitting Judge.

I'm currently composing a letter to Judge Smith. Initially I was ready to "blast" him and denounce his decision. Enclosing the Federal Customs and Immigration Laws. But upon learning that he is a Bush appointee and presumed Republican, that drew me up short. I took a step back and I am now laboring to understand why/how the Ninth Circuit Court protects the free speech of foreigners here illegally.

Is there something in our Constitution and the amendments that I am missing ? I contemplated that perhaps these judges see things through different glasses. Such as - it is the job of DHS, CBP, ICE to enforce the customs and immigration laws. Not the courts. But there are some Judges who will not allow illegal aliens in the court room!

It holds also in the principles of law that: He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

This is an open invitation to comment before I complete my letter. I will be interested in viewpoints.

[ilbegone]

Smith is a Bush appointee

Federal Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, which suggests compromise.

I have read of where individual Judges often issue rulings contrary to political philosophy of the president who nominated him - democrat or republican.

I took a step back and I am now laboring to understand why/how the Ninth Circuit Court protects the free speech of foreigners here illegally.

I don't understand why, but the 9th circuit court of appeals may well issue rulings as a body which may be very different than say, the first circuit court of appeals. I think the key is how individual judges interpret the Constitution. I believe the 9th circuit is generally very liberal.

Judges are supposed to be independent from either tyranny of the majority and other political pressure. For example, I'm quite sure that United States vs. Wong Kim Ark went against much public and political sentiment, but it was the last stop for the case and set much precedent.

It may be that Smith doesn't approve of or sympathize with illegal day laborers, but there may be something in the struck down ordinance which Judge Smith saw as a threat to the greater freedoms of Americans and could set precedence to curtail American freedoms. However, you would have to ask him.

Judicial rulings are supposed to be derived from interpretation of the constitution. "interpretation" could boil down to distilling precedence while personal life experience or personal beliefs may well influence decisions - hence Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor's statement that "as a woman and Latina"...

And some judges are just plain corrupt.

[wetibbe]

I mailed my letter to the Judge yesterday.

[Kathy63]

The ruling is directed against the religion of the homeowners. It cannot be otherwise.

There were public nuisance complaints that were real.

However, taken in another context. A homeowner that maintains a multifamily household with 30 people living there parking on the street gets no compliant, even when it's every day. A neighbor who complains will be told it's a public street.

Someone complaining about a drunken party with loud rap music at 7PM will be told the noise ordinance deals with noise after 10PM.

To imagine that this isn't selective is just foolish.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Hard to argue against that Kathy

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by wetibbe

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

The ruling by 9Th circuit court, El Segundo, certainly has me scrambling to understand it. If any of my California friends have any input/insight I would like to hear it.

Here's the deal:

I'm presently researching the courts decision and I am having a dilemma. Judge Milan Dale Smith,Jr. was in the decision denying the Town the right to control illegal aliens day laborers, essentially giving the laborers the right to assemble, solicit work and call out for car washes. Smith is a Bush appointee * Check him on Wikipedia ). His brother, Gordon, is a Republican and U.S. Senator from Oregon.

Normally I can peg the liberal, left, progressive Judges. For example, years back here in Mamaroneck, New York the day labors sued the local police. Federal Judge Colleen McMahon ruled against the police and appointed a watchdog to surveil the police assuring they would no longer disperse the day laborers, ask them questions or stop the contractors from picking them up. She was a blatant Democrat, liberal, progressive. Yes, I wrote to her - no response.

Federal Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker wrote a book, the Tyranny of Tolerance, exposing the left liberal progressives in the Judiciary. That took lots of courage as he was a sitting Judge.

I'm currently composing a letter to Judge Smith. Initially I was ready to "blast" him and denounce his decision. Enclosing the Federal Customs and Immigration Laws. But upon learning that he is a Bush appointee and presumed Republican, that drew me up short. I took a step back and I am now laboring to understand why/how the Ninth Circuit Court protects the free speech of foreigners here illegally.

Is there something in our Constitution and the amendments that I am missing ? I contemplated that perhaps these judges see things through different glasses. Such as - it is the job of DHS, CBP, ICE to enforce the customs and immigration laws. Not the courts. But there are some Judges who will not allow illegal aliens in the court room!

It holds also in the principles of law that: He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

This is an open invitation to comment before I complete my letter. I will be interested in viewpoints.

I believe somewhere in their ruling they opined that the restriction could prevent bake sales or other girl scout type activities and that this was overly broad