Wt will Win case Before Supreme Court

by JT 35 Replies latest jw friends

  • JT
    JT

    I think the small time lawyer will be out gunned on this one- most small towns always end up passsing goofy laws like this one

    while i have no love for wt i do know a poorly written law when i see one exp when the mayor is walking around IN AFFECT SAYING: "Ww want to keep YOU people out"

    THE boys in legal laugh when they see some elective dude say some off the cuff remark like that

    i tell you once i tell you again- thsi little town could have saved 10's of 1000's of dollars by merely using what is already in place.

    WT has a policy that many of us know has been in effect for years. "DO NOT CALL"

    I have told all my block how to keep jw away by merely asking would they be so kind as to include their home on the local KH list of DO NOT CALL and now almost every house on my block is written down on the back of a territory card and the jw know not to call

    NO COST, SIMPLE AND CLEAN- WHY NOT USE THE WT ON RULES they make it so easy don't they

    well i was not able to get down to the court on tues, but here is the article from the WASH POST and as you can see it APPEARS THAT THE COURT LAUGHED THE COUNTRY LAWYERS OUT OF COURT

    let's put it this way if OHIO win i will be shocked if WT wins it will be no surprised BASED ON HOW THE GOOFY LAW WAS WRITTEN

    why didn't they make sure that the law would cut mustard first

    james

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7569-2002Feb26.html

    By Charles Lane
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, February 27, 2002; Page A03
    Three gentle knocks on a lectern opened a debate over religious and political freedom at the Supreme Court yesterday, as a lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses demonstrated what happens when members of the group appear at front doors in the Ohio village of Stratton.
    Under Stratton's contested ordinance barring unauthorized canvassing or soliciting, "it is a criminal act to go door-to-door to deliver [the group's] message without a permit," Paul D. Polidoro told the justices. "It would also be illegal to pass out a leaflet saying, 'Democracy is wonderful. Please vote tomorrow.' " And that, Polidoro said, violates the First Amendment.
    Stratton countered that its ordinance is necessary to protect the safety and privacy of its 300 mostly elderly residents, and that it applies equally to everyone -- a view that prevailed both in an Ohio federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, prompting the Jehovah's Witnesses' appeal to the Supreme Court.
    At the court yesterday, however, several justices suggested that the measure's scope is broader than necessary to accomplish the town's professed objectives.
    "We can all stipulate that the safest societies in the world are totalitarian societies," Justice Antonin Scalia remarked to Stratton's lawyer, Abraham Cantor, adding that "some risk" of crime might be the price of liberty.
    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy observed that, read literally, the ordinance might apply to neighbors going down the block to complain about poor garbage collection.
    And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked whether Halloween trick-or-treaters have to get a permit. Spectators laughed, but O'Connor persisted. "I'm serious," she said.
    Cantor denied that the rule covers trick-or-treaters. But in his rebuttal, Polidoro said homeowners are allowed to tell Stratton's mayor whether they would permit an exception to the law at their homes for trick-or-treaters.
    The case, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, No. 00-1737, has attracted attention in part because the Jehovah's Witnesses -- who believe that they may not salute the flag or submit to military conscription, and that they must proselytize in person among their neighbors -- have a history of fighting and winning important free-expression cases in the Supreme Court.
    Polidoro alluded to that history when he told the justices of the group's "long historical memory as to what they have suffered at the hands of municipalities."
    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminded Polidoro, however, that past cases involved local officials who denied the Jehovah's Witnesses rights that they granted to others, whereas here the group had not yet even applied for a permit in Stratton.
    Still, only Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist seemed to agree fully with Stratton that public safety might justify the permit requirement, noting that two teenagers arrested for a brutal double murder near Dartmouth College had allegedly posed as poll-takers to gain access to homes in the area.
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which also practices door-to-door proselytizing, filed a brief backing the Jehovah's Witnesses in which it decried a "substantial increase" in municipal ordinances similar to Stratton's over the past decade. Such rules, the Mormons say, have "severely curtailed" church members' ability to express themselves.
    On Stratton's side, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other local government organizations said a defeat for Stratton would leave localities around the country less able to control unwanted or dangerous visitors.
    The case also is being closely watched by both sides of the campaign finance reform debate for clues as to the court's views on the regulation of political speech.
    Under the Stratton ordinance, political activists, too, would have to disclose their identities to officials to get a permit to distribute their pamphlets.
    In the past, the court has said that the Constitution protects the right to publish and distribute political literature anonymously.
    Campaign reform advocates are concerned that the court, in this case, could produce an opinion broadening that right to anonymity -- thereby eroding the legal foundations of state and federal disclosure rules for candidates and donors.
    The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, a leading campaign reform group, urged the court in a friend-of-the-court brief, which was not filed on behalf of either side in the case, "to clarify that federal, state and local election-related reporting and disclosure requirements are constitutional, with only very narrow exceptions."

  • Francois
    Francois

    The town of Stratton, or the city of New York, could get the biggest, meanest, most talented law firm in the world to try and get JWs or anyone else to register and get a permit to go door to door and they'd fall on their asses just as soon as they ran smack into the absolute wording of the first amendment. And I'm tickled shitless that is the way it is. Start watering down the First Amendment because the group you're after is unpopular and the next thing you'll know is that they'll be after YOUR group. No sir, Stratton will "loose" and the JWs will "win." And I wouldn't want it any other way, because in the end, we all win when the constitution once again proves to be the foundation and unassailable bedrock of the rights of us all.

    So, it won't be the WT that "wins" this case, it will be our constitutional republic.

    Francois

    NOTE TO GOVERNING BODY: You've been challenged to a debate, boys. Dont you have ANY balls?

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Amen, Francois, every word.

    The knee-jerk reaction around here of, 'Oh someone is against the WTS? Then I'm on that side!!' is dangerous.

    [quote]"...other local government organizations said a defeat for Stratton would leave localities around the country less able to control unwanted or dangerous visitors."

    Good. The last thing Americans should want is greater control over their lives by the government. That is, after all, why America was born as a nation in the first place.

  • Pureheart
    Pureheart

    Hi JT,

    I think that the town lawyers underestimated the power and control that the WT has. I think that they think that the humble looking JWs that run around their town are a reflection of the WTS, and would run at the first sign of a threat. Boy did they learn different. DON'T MESS WITH THE WTS. THEY WILL HURT SOMEBODY!!!!!!! And I mean that in the most literal way. Turn the other cheek, huh? Yeh right!!

    Pureheart

  • Sargon
    Sargon

    Maybe i'm missing the point here alltogether, but I thought that the freedoms guaranteeed under your American constitution were sacred.
    I would have thought that everyone would support the WTBS on this one.
    I'm no thumper, but when your country gives you rights, don't support the side that wants to take them back. If i'm looking at this through rose coloured glasses please set me straight.

    I know it's only Rock n' Roll...

  • Dutchy
    Dutchy

    I agre that the First Amendment has to be ptotected at all costs. If the WBTS is the one that helps to keep it protected, then so be it. At least, they are good for something productive, and you have to give credit where credit is due.

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    A basic question to whoever has knowledge of the American constitution.

    The first amendment reads:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    If a neo-nazi group wishes to spread their message, are they not permitted to do so by this amendment? Are there other provisions preventing this?

    Expatbrit

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    <I would have thought that everyone would support the WTBS on this one.>

    I am NOT in favor of giving legal support to pedophiles going door to door.

    I am not a proponent for government inteerference. But I DO want these pedophiles kept off my front door. If Jehovah's Witnesses want equal rights, then let them have equal decency first. NO OTHER RELIGION ORDERS CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTERS TO PEOPLE'S DOORS!!!

    If there's one good thing about this case, it is: It is now a matter of public court record that Jehovah's Witnesses order their members,who are known pedophiles, to go door to door.

    And regardless of whether the United States has listened to Stratton; by golly you'd better believe the whole rest of the world is going to know about it. I feel very sorry for JW's in other countries, where the communites are a little more family oriented and won't let the JW's get away with this horendous policy.

    As far as the Watchtower winning, well; so did the tobacco companies. They won and they won---and then ONE day they didn't.

    I'm hoping Stratton will set up some kind of collection fund that supporters can contribute to.

    RUN WATCHTOWER RUN---your time is coming.

    In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"

  • no1special
    no1special

    Sorry if I'm cyncical, but I loved the WT lawyers argument:

    . "It would also be illegal to pass out a leaflet saying, 'Democracy is wonderful. Please vote tomorrow.'
    wow. and under WT law, you'd be DF'd (or DA'd) if you passed out such a leaflet.

    oh, and from WT lawyer rebuttal:

    But in his rebuttal, Polidoro said homeowners are allowed to tell Stratton's mayor whether they would permit an exception to the law at their homes for trick-or-treaters.
    yeah, that's real relavent. All the JW trick-or-treaters will be so disappointed.

    I love how they will crow about this at the DC this summer. But, they will omit what the lawyer actually said to win the case.

  • amccullough
    amccullough

    [q]It is now a matter of public court record that Jehovah's Witnesses order their members,who are known pedophiles[/q]

    Wow, didn't realize that they are ALL known pedophiles.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit