double standard? (USA thread)

Added to the recent thread about judicial activism and foreign "influence"

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.

My views on gun ownership is a wish for only law enforcement, military and "hunter/farmers" to have them so I support the Bush view, however I can't abide the double standard.

The Supreme court has ruled that only domestic convictions apply.... bit of a turn for both sides I feel.


so you know what I am talking about

The case in question is a bit extreme (gun smuggling) and I don't think this man should have a gun legally under any circumstance, but if right wingers are going to object to judges looking at foreign views then they have to accept that foreign convictions should not apply.

thoughts

"In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the language of the phrase "convicted in any court" had an "expansive meaning" to include foreign convictions. The majority, he said, "institutes the troubling rule that 'any' does not really mean 'any,' but may mean 'some subset of 'any," even if nothing in the context so indicates; it distorts the established canons against extraterritorality and absurdity."

Subset of any - fan tastic, yay the dissenter.

In essence your Supreme Court has decided that convictions in foreign Courts are to be ignored. Depending of the wording of the specific legislation. I suppose it would stand for any piece which relied on the phrase "convicted in any Court" and as such preclude any such convictions had they been made in a foreign Court.

Obviously they can act on your behalf as they see fit. However it is just another example of them deciding that the USA should live in isolation from the views and actions of the rest of the World. In this instance it looks like they are saying, "Yes he did a bad thing in your country, that is of no interest to us. Any conviction you made is of no consequence"

However this is more to do with the interpretation of the word "any", hence my mirth at the idea that you have a subset of it.

The wording of "any" hasn't gone without attention. However we have different laws so something that is a felony in the Uk is not here.
I actually believe that any conviction in any court in any land should count, but then should someone with a conviction for "use of excessive force" in self defence...an assault charge... in the UK be banned from gun ownership in the US if his assault wouldn't get an arrest let alone conviction here?

Edit:

The people argueing the "any" are the same people that said that foreign courts are not always just and therefore can have NO BEARING on the US. examples given included courts in places like Iran, North korea and Cuba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The language in our law quoted in the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Kennedy and Scalia), while at first blush seeming to run counter to the spirit of my thread, in fact supports it; Thomas found that the phrase "any court" should mean precisely what it says, foreign conviction or no.

The fact that a similar domestic conviction would have certainly resulted in a finding that Mr. Small should henceforth be precluded from ownership of a firearm is irrelevant-the matter at hand concerns the strict interpretation of the language contained in the law, which, had the decision gone according to the minority contention, would have had the same result.

---

Indeed.

It is my understanding that, in law, words should have their normal meaning. Unless the context alters this, I believe the dissenter covered this point rather well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

While it may not be apparent, I think the minority opinion indicates it shares your belief that the idea of a "subset" of the word "any" (as used) is absurd.

---

That is how I had read it, how can one have a subset of "any".

I don't know about this "any" shit.

I think every case should be looked at individually and foreign cases would take less precedence.

For example, if I was covicted of possession of a handgun in the UK then that should not preclude me from owning one here.

If the same happened in Washington DC then I can't own a gun.

I understand the reluctance of a sort of reciprocity due to a foreign country maybe harboring an anti-Americanism.

It's enough that they are subject to their laws but should Americans in America be subject to them too? I don't think so in every case.

The main purpose is to safeguard Americans from potential criminals.
If an American massacred 13 folks on foreign soil it would be foolish to ignore him "when he comes back home". I recall a case that some fella was going to the Phillipines with just the mere intention of having sex with children and I think we actually punished him with jail time. I think there was a law on the books for that.

The matter is up to our lawmakers first and thennnnn there can be concrete application.

j2k4 is ghye omg roflpamnts :0110101010101:

no really you dont look fprward to iy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Once again, you miss the point; the minority "argument" over the word any is that (listen closely, now) there should be NO argument over the word's meaning.

It is the majority decision which has (mis-) taken the liberties, here.

---

What minority?

I stated that it should mean any... so how did I miss the point?I am simply pointing out that last week the same people...and read carefully because I put it in bold before..... stated without any exceptions that under no circumstances should foreign courts have any bearing on the USA. They stated that foreign courts were not "fair and democratic" as ours..... are they now saying that they are?

I remind you that I believe that judges should be able to take into account international norms when making rulings on moral or human rights issues.... I seem to recall objections to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I don't know about this "any" shit.

---

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.

Quote:

---

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.

---

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

---

the thread is about double standards, not common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

if you see someone slip on a wet floor, you don't walk on the floor just because you yourself haven't yet slipped on it, you heed the warning and walk round

it's common sense. if someone shows you someone is dangerous, don't let em have a gun. it's rediculous not to work like that

---

Is that any wet floor, or a subset of wet floors.

The Supreme Court has decided that other Courts are not able to judge on whether a floor is wet or not. So they choose to let their people slip on a good American floor, rather than trust anyone else.

Madness, complete madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.

---

Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.

Now if our esteemed lawmakers decide to give, for instance, a gun possession in the UK more credence then so be it.

I don't see the double standard reference that vid points to because they are not apples-to-apples comparisons.

One refers to influences on judges when interpreting law and the other refers to legislative action.

This guy's case is an issue to be taken up by our legislative branch. The judicial branch made the correct decision. If they had ruled against him, it would have only gone against the constitution seeing that any other current law did not prohibit his gun ownership.

Put a reciprocity law on the books and then work from there. Otherwise, for the purposes here, he has broken no law. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Well I say fuck the "any" shit because their job is to interpret law and not make it.

From what I understand, the reason the fella was able to purchase a gun here was because there was no law stating he couldn't.

---

That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

That's the point, your lawmakers were not clear. Why would they be, where is their expertise in drafting legislation. Getting the most votes hardly makes one an expert in the field. They said "any Court" and someone obviously contended that this was "any Court in the USA".

The Supreme Court then had to make a judgement on what "any" actually meant, in the context of this piece of legislation. That is their job, to interpret not only the words of the lawmakers, but their intent. They agreed, on a majority, that it was "any Court in the USA". I suspect that was not the intention of your lawmakers, for the simple reason that it does not best protect your citizens, which seems to be the point

The interpretation of the law (as written) is at least as important as it's making. The making of the laws is all good and well, however it only effects real people when it is interpreted by your judges and ultimately ruled on by your Supreme Court.

---

I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

---

It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i really don't think we should be saying this "double standard" is bad.

---

Their end opinion on this I agree with in that any should mean any.

But if the double standard came the other way round, these people shouting that we must count outside convictions domestically...then...the the same people show outrage over a judge looking at outside courts when making a ruling here as they did when a ruling was made that we shouldn't execute minors.These people wish to "reel in" the judges because of it.

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

It's not about an "International Court" (if such exists), or a Court in North Korea.

It's about the fact that your lawmakers said "any Court" and your Supreme Court has now decided that "any Court" meant "any Court in the USA". Tho' the dissenters questioned the basis for this decision.

The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that you have now decided that a conviction outside of the USA does not preclude a person from buying and carrying a firearm in your country.

It's an internal, USA matter. Should you recognise wet floors elsewhere or not. The Supreme Court has decided not to. I do not believe that was the intention of the lawmakers or that it is in the best interests of your citizens.

---

It's internal...for real? You're kidding? :blink:

We should not recognize wet floors in all cases. If the Supreme Court cock-blocked the intention of lawmakers so be it (if that's what happened). I think it was just, in this case. Now the lawmakers can tweak their wording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

---

Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal? :huh:

What about assault?

I wonder does the UK do the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

---

why disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

---

i completely agree. i was under the impression that you were saying in america you should wipe the slate clean or import the whole criminal record.

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

why disagree?

---

Damn that wasn't very clear.

I agree, I disagree. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with the Supreme Court and disagree with the opposite notion. SOrry. :blink:

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal? :huh:

---

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.

Quote:

---

What about assault?

---

Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.



Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......

---

This is what I have a problem with.

In the UK, I wouldn't be able to own a handgun. If owned one across the border and brought it over, that's criminal. I would not want that to preclude someone from owning one here. If that was the case then that is essentially exporting UK law here.

Even in assault, a UK court might view assault in a different way thean we do. Felony assault in the UK would preclude me from owning a handgun in the US.
I actually with a case by case basis but problem is there still needs to be concrete law.
I understand the converse as well.
I remember many Cuban refugees were actually criminals in their country turned loose on America ffs. The movie Scarface made reference to something very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent

---

I totally disagree. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.

---

Agreed but the reason I don't understand what hoopla is with this "any" shit is that it couldn't possibly apply to ANY COURT IN THE WORLD.

I could get convicted of a crime in a country completely hostile to America.....and then I'll be penalized by uhh America too.

This is why I thank the Supreme Court for having some "common sense".

If we are to recognize other courts when it comes to our laws they should be named specifically.

This shouldn't even have been debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I totally disagree. :dry:

---

are you rodding me or did you sell your common sense for some magic beans?


---------------------


with the assault thing i suppose you have a point, if we are burgled we are allowed to use reasonable force. so if an unarmed burglar breaks in and i beat him to death with a baseball bat, that would be manslaughter. whereas it seems that way of thinking is ok in america, so that charge shouldn't carried over.

with guns though i find it hard to imagine someone in britain with a gun not to be a dickhead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Agreed but the reason I don't understand what hoopla is with this "any" shit is that it couldn't possibly apply to ANY COURT IN THE WORLD.

I could get convicted of a crime in a country completely hostile to America.....and then I'll be penalized by uhh America too.

This is why I thank the Supreme Court for having some "common sense".

If we are to recognize other courts when it comes to our laws they should be named specifically.

This shouldn't even have been debatable.

---

cases should be looked at without prejudice. whether you like the original country or not shouldn't effect whether they get a fair trial in the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

are you rodding me or did you sell your common sense for some magic beans?


---------------------


with the assault thing i suppose you have a point, if we are burgled we are allowed to use reasonable force. so if an unarmed burglar breaks in and i beat him to death with a baseball bat, that would be manslaughter. whereas it seems that way of thinking is ok in america, so that charge shouldn't carried over.

with guns though i find it hard to imagine someone in britain with a gun not to be a dickhead

---

That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing. Your prejudice and law against certain things is just fine for over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

cases should be looked at without prejudice. whether you like the original country or not shouldn't effect whether they get a fair trial in the US

---

Cases should be looked without prejudice where?

Whatever the foreign country is, it shouldn't have much bearing on a US trial.....but in all cases shouldn't be totally ignored for all laws.
Sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing.

---

apart from target practice, which i know can be pretty fun (i used to own with my airguns) nothing good can come from it. in britain we don't even have the scare culture that make homeowners feel they need guns. so the only people who would wnat a gun here would be upto no good.

however without a conviction for threatening behaviour or using the gun, the 'up to no good' is only presumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

That's my point. Besides the fact that one can't own a gun there, you among your other UK mates on this board, view simply owning a gun as a bad thing.

---

I guess the UK thing doesn't include me, but for what it's worth the consensus seemed to be that owning a gun in itself isn't a bad thing, it's just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them, I (or we) have no problem with guns if they are in the hands of the right people, ie law enforcement or similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Cases should be looked without prejudice where?

Whatever the foreign country is, it shouldn't have much bearing on a US trial.....but in all cases shouldn't be totally ignored for all laws.
Sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances.

---

in all cases previous convictions should be investigated. i suppose if a person was from zimbabwe and was set up for opposing the government or something along those lines a case can be invalid but that's why it should be investigated.

what if a man gets done for armed robbery in france then moves to america, should this previous crime be wiped from his record? tbh i don't believe it should be questioned, but that's just my oppinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I guess the UK thing doesn't include me, but for what it's worth the consensus seemed to be that owning a gun in itself isn't a bad thing, it's just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them, I (or we) have no problem with guns if they are in the hands of the right people, ie law enforcement or similar.

---

i think the UK thing means not america but, us UKians are particularly snooty about the fact our gun laws work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

apart from target practice, which i know can be pretty fun (i used to own with my airguns) nothing good can come from it. in britain we don't even have the scare culture that make homeowners feel they need guns. so the only people who would wnat a gun here would be upto no good.

however without a conviction for threatening behaviour or using the gun, the 'up to no good' is only presumption.

---

Your paragraphs are somewhat contradictory then.

The bottom line is..you can't own a handgun there and that's fine but by making a gun possession conviction in the UK valid here then that makes you almost the same as Washington DC (where handguns are illegal).

Since the UK is not part of America and your government, views of law, and such are different, then I should not be subject to your probationary measures in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Your paragraphs are somewhat contradictory then.

The bottom line is..you can't own a handgun there and that's fine but by making a gun possession conviction in the UK valid here then that makes you almost the same as Washington DC (where handguns are illegal).

Since the UK is not part of America and your government, views of law, and such are different, then I should not be subject to your probationary measures in America.

---

i don't see the contradiction. the only incentive to own a gun here is to commit crime, but we can only presume until someone is charged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i don't see the contradiction. the only incentive to own a gun here is to commit crime, but we can only presume until someone is charged

---

That's how YOU view it.

If I lived there, I'd want one for protection in my home.