By The fact that the supreme court has decided a very important case regarding the constitutionality of the NDAA is a big plus in my books.
This case involves the US government’s practice of requiring any person who’s ever been arrested to first undergo a court-ordered mental evaluation. The argument being that the defendant who is now free of any charges must now prove that he/she was mentally unstable when the charges were brought against them. Of course, this is a very slippery slope.
The whole thing is a bit weird to me. First, it seems to me that the courts have no right to order someone to undergo this kind of evaluation. The government could have asked the police to arrest someone, or it could have brought charges. The first option sounds like a reasonable one, but the second is pretty much tantamount to torture.
Well, the courts are still required to be neutral, just not to order people to undergo these kinds of evaluations. The courts are supposed to be for the people, not the government. The court is supposed to hear the evidence, not make people do something that makes them a better person.
The courts are still required to be neutral, and it’s not a pretty good metric, but it does sound like a good idea to me. But it’s not really a good idea to order people to do this, because it’s really the people’s best course of action for them. And the people get to do this, but they don’t get to do this, not by doing this, but by doing this, because they don’t know what they’re doing right now.
The fact is that the person who is to be punished is the one who is to be punished, not the one who is to be punished. So its up to the person who is to be punished to decide whether they want to be punished by the court or by themselves.
But to do that, you have to know what is going on and you have to be prepared to do the things you are going to do. Of course, it’s an extremely unusual scenario. You need to order people to do something. You need to know what to do.
It is not an uncommon practice in the US to punish people, for example, for violating an individual’s privacy, and in the US (and the rest of the world) it is considered a very serious offense. The indiana supreme court has ordered that a guilty person be punished by themselves instead of the court. But the court has no power to order that the guilty person be punished by themselves.
It is not a rare practice to punish people, but it is not an uncommon practice to order people to do something. In fact, it is not an uncommon practice to demand that people do something that is not on their own to do. In this case, it is a very rare practice to demand that someone (even someone who has had a previous life) punish themselves. It is not unusual to demand that someone punish themselves for a crime they did not commit.
Power to order someone to do something? That’s a very rare power. To me, that’s like ordering someone to do anything for themselves. I’m not sure where that idea came from, but it’s not something I think I would ever want to do.
Comments