I could be wrong, but the french fry case might be his undoing...

Whatever the legal justifications may be, a judge who rules that the handcuffing a crying 12-year-old girl for eating a french fry is okay may not sit well with mainstream Americans. That's the sort of thing that transcends politics and gets into the neighborhood of common sense. It's also a simplistic enough issue that your average schmoe will feel comfortable taking a stand on it.

Roberts may be able to explain his decision amongst legal scholars and be correct, but to the regular person, it may be as simple as he approved of arresting a girl for eating a french fry. Sad as it is to say, that may be the best chance to sway public opinion -- Roe v Wade, environmental protections, federalist society, etc. might not do it. But give the public a crying girl in handcuffs and they might have something they can take a stand on.


Updated for grammar corrections

:eyes:

Could I have more details? This seems absurd to me.

Seems like I read somewhere she was, but I've been reading so much in the last few days.

That would add a certain tinge of racism to this case, wouldn't it? I mean, what the hell was the girl doing that justified handcuffs? Did she eat part of the french fry and then assault the officer with the rest of it? :eyes:

Nominee’s french fry ruling, revisited
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/12173620.htm

Supreme Court Nominee Ruled on Metro French Fry Case
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0705/244969.html

You guys in the U. S. have a lot of freaky laws (ok ok, so do we in Canada, but that one's a first to me)

Food attracts rats, bugs, and all sorts of other nasties. It's one of the reasons Metro is one of the cleanest subway systems in the country. Or at least it was, until they took the trashcans out of stations because of the security threat.

:-)

I think he has enough large issues to sink
him, if the Senate looks beyond the Stepford
facade.

blocking the Roberts nomination because of a frackin' french fry?

If it is his undoing - would that be what they call irony or poetic justice?

especially since it was a unanimous ruling. I guess if the plan is to make the left look like a bunch of idiots, it will certainly accomplish that.

Now I am going by memory here on the rules governing a public officials immunity for acts done in the commission of their duty, but I believe that for a public official such as a cop to be subject to suit, it must be found that they deliberately violated the law.

Roberts was not ruling on whether the girl should have been arrested. He was ruling on whether the cop knew that it was illegal to arrest her. This is the issue which must be decided in determining whether the cop loses his immmunity and can be sued.

for violating the law, as you state (and I have no reason to dispute that) then, it was a good ruling. The cop did not act outside of the statute or code - in fact, he's guilty of following the letter of the law too closely. Perhaps the officer was a little overzealous, but he didn't commit a crime and should not be subject to a civil suit, either.

BTW - this flys in the face of my initial reaction which was to say "oh how awful."

An 8 year-old was handcuffed and arrested for reaching out and stealing a single french fry in a cafeteria like setting. Obviously never convicted. So she sued the cop. Roberts opined that the suit should be dismissed because there was no evidence the arrest was unlawful. Stupid maybe, but not illegal.

a fry? And one in which a 12 yr old girl got busted for eating them in a no eating D.C metro zone? And Roberts was just involved with the 8 yr old girl who stole the french (freedom) fry?

Don't gloat too much.

Its still a pretty reasonable decision. he starts right out saying what happened was wrong, but technically legal.

bob roberts..I mean john roberts including the ruling on the french fry case.

<<snips>>

Bob Roberts
I know: his name is John, not Bob. But I'm talking about the 1992 Tim Robbins movie -- the one about the smooth-talking hedge fund trader turned Senate candidate, who uses his Waspy good looks and personal charm to cloak an ultra-conservative political agenda.

And now we have John Roberts -- a smooth-talking corporate lawyer turned appeals court judge, whose Waspy good looks and blue-chip credentials may conceal an ultraconservative legal agenda. The perfect Stealth nominee, in other words.

<<snips>>
Then there was Roberts's even more bizarre ruling upholding the right of the Washington DC transit police to arrest and handcuff a 12-year-old girl for eating a french fry in a Metro station.

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.


Much more interesting stuff on john roberts..
http://www.billmon.org/

and no, I don't think most Americans will find it sitting well with them.

cases:********half way down page************
But then there was another WMATA case -- known as the french fry case -- which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making.

In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

http://www.wjla.com/news/allposts.hrb?s=244969

All wingnuts.

Sheesh. If folks can't see the similarites between wingnuts and muslim extremists.

the shrieking and begging for mercy.. the loud wet smack of the cane on bloody flesh.... the hooting and laughter of the excited crowd.. the shame of the criminal need to be shared..

Whippings are a bonding of people and social legal order.. without a audience the whipping is wasted...

Lots of people need to see what can happen to them for eating an F'n UN Fry in Public,... or why bother...

Spring and Fall
to a young child

MARGARET are you grieving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leaves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Ah! as the heart grows colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Through worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie.
And yet you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name
Sorrow's springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It is the blight of man was born for,
Its margaret you mourn for.

by Gerad Manly Hopkins

http://www.bartleby.com/122/index2.html a list of his exiastinf work, he burned most of it when he became a christian minister.

my favorate poem is.. the "Windover"
http://www.bartleby.com/122/12.html

he is discribing a hunting falcon in a freshly plowed field, the way they set up a dive by swinging out to take advantage of the wind, and and discribes the attack and kill.

at the stake, for being possessed by satan

Every single person on that board has done MUCH worse than eat a blessed frecnh fry in a no-eating zone. According to their own rules of conduct, all of them should be sitting in prison right now - along with the rest of the country (although at least we'd have a universal health care program that way).

They just want their fries. The judge had a chance to do what was right but hid behind the wrong law. No evidence of judicial savvy.
Next!

They should make an ad with the girl.

Some legal scholars (and certainly those on the right) will probably say that Roberts did his job and upheld the law in the way that the law was written. But it just doesn't resonate very well. There seems almost no logical way in modern America that a kid could be arrested for eating a French Fry and the arresting officers be vindicated in their behavior.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=shapiro2

and then find someone in DC, who rides the Metro, who thinks the police overreacted. they didn't. end of story.

Perhaps DC people should have just stoned the kid on the spot and not waited for the police.

apparently no food or drink is not an acceptable rule to the unwashed masses. we shall rescind it and raise our fares to hire more cleaners.

what, exactly, is wrong with expecting a 12 year old to know what a no food or drink siiign looks like?

A kid can make an honest mistake. You get some french fries for later, you smell them, you eat one absent-mindedly. Hell, I could see myself doing that and I'm 34. What about a breath mint? Does that count? I would think that breath mints wouldn't be considered food, but maybe I'm wrong. See there - honest mistake.

I think a cop coming over and saying "Hey -- no eating on the train" would suffice. Handcuffing her? You can't possibly live in America and think that the crime fits the punishment. It's a french fry.

I really can't believe I'm having this discussion on this board. Next time you absent-mindedly step into an intersection before the "Walk" sign comes on, I hope they cart you off to Guantanamo Bay.

by the way? doesn't really make the articles, but the transit cop did, in fact, tell her to stop eating. her response? "fuck you" That's when she was cited.

does that change your opinion any? I actually have been ticketed (in LA) for jaywalking. how do you issue a citation to someone without ID? I was allowed, at 24, to call my roomate to bring me my ID, outside of my apartment, so the police could write me a ticket. otherwise, it would have been a free trip to the police station for me.

again, how do you issue a citation to a minor without ID? And should the police make a judgement call on who to handcuff? only people who 'look like a threat'? where's the line?

Then the primary cause of the citation is not for eating, but causing a disturbance, and we're dealing with something else entirely. I have much, much less problem with that.

I frankly think the police let you off too easy. You could have been calling anyone on that cell phone. A sniper. Your gang. How can they make a judgment on whether you're a threat? Where's the line? They should have let you make the phone call from the police station.

was next door to my apartment, it wasn't that bad.

the citation was for eating, but it was provoked after her hostile response to the officer. That didn't make the news very much, although it was noted, because WMATA's PR people didn't want to be seen as attacking a 12 year old girl, so they let it pass.

Just kiddin'

The story frankly makes more sense now, the way you tell it. There was probably some fault on both sides, but the "handcuffed for a french fry" angle is much too simplistic. Perhaps once can still say the cop over-reacted, but it's much more justifiable if the kid was cursing and causing a distrurbance after the initial warning.

short of violent crime, theres no real reason to handcuff a child

TECHNICALLY didn't do anything wrong? Should he really be sued? And, what are the damages in relation to the cost of litigating the case?

On edit: I just don't think Judge Roberts erred in his decision. I'm not saying the cop wasn't a jerk.

It was about whether or not they could be sued for violating the kid's rights or subjecting her to an illegal arrest. There's a difference and the unanimous decision of the court was correct under the law as written.

Roe v Wade (and the environmental protection act) is also the law as it is currently written. So how can he insist that the law as written is all that matters, and then proclaim the right to overturn those laws.

I dunno. Just thinking out loud.

that she gets little to no sympathy by the people who use METRO, those of us who live in DC and the inner burbs. But once again, the rest of the country will decide our laws for us.

Do you know why they handcuffed her? because the law at the time stated that a: there is no eating or drinking on the Metro. there are signs every ten feet. you cannot miss them. b: in the district of columbia, police cannot cite a minor for such an offense without a parent or guardian present, this is for the protection of the child. if a parent or guardian is not present, the officer must detain the minor until such a time as a parent or guardian can be located to accept the citation. c: anytime an officer takes someone into custody, they must be handcuffed. This eliminates discrimination totally, the officer has no choice in the matter.

so given these facts, a 12 year old girl cited on the metro for committing a $50 infraction. the officer can either let her, and every other minor go, or hold her until her parent is located. Once she is detained, she must be handcuffed.

but who cares about our laws? you all have your own pet projects to cast upon our waters, telling us how to run our city. Metro is the cleanest public transit system in North America, it's cleaner than any I have been on in the world, save Toyko. It's because there is no food or drink in the system, and we're proud of it. the only people you see violating the rules, for the most part are teenagers (thanks to the court case over this, they cannot be cited or arrested, the law does not apply to them anymore) and tourists. So thank you, Judge Roberts, for agreeing that we can, in fact, make our own rules. And apply them to people. Everyone who rides metro has seen tourists and others get nabbed for drinking and eating.

go back to your flyover state and leave us alone.

Reached into a box of popcorn at a movie or something. She's a 12 year old girl, for cripe's sake. What's wrong with the cop telling her not to eat and leave it at that?

DC changed the law because you realized how stupid it was. You can put up signs not to eat, but enforcing would have required nothing more than the cop telling the kid not to eat. Handcuffs? You can't be serious.

DC changed the law to exempt teenagers from the law. That's what the new law does, in essence. Because of a national outcry, teenagers now cannot be cited on the Metro.

and there are more of them eating. so it's messier.

I was on the subway and my bloodsugar was going nuts so I reached for some candy instead of waiting and probably fainting. I guess I am some horrible person who deserves prison time, huh.

In the grand scheme of things, the Transit people should be worried about more serious matters. Not a fucking french fry.

for medicinal purposes and a large fry from McDonald's? i guess not.

and by the way, are you going to pay to dry clean my suit when it gets grease on it from your fries? I've had coffee spilled on me on the T, I guess it's only a matter of time before I can start lighting up my pipe on the metro, huh? I mean, the cops have more important things to do.

This is coming from someone borderline OCD about clean spaces and things. For the record, I have never used anyones suit as a napkin or spilled coffee. I have had coffee spilled on me during a flight to NY while wearing a new Calvin Klein dress. I was pissed, but honestly, shit happens. I didn't sue the arline or demand that the flight attendant be arrested upon landing. Why? Because I have gone through way too much shit to worry about something that frivolous.

What the hell does a kid eating a fry have to do with lighting up a pipe?

bans smoking. so if one is ok, the other is too, right? as long as I 'absentmindeldly' light up my pipe, i'm ok?

no, I just don't particularly like showing up for a job interview in a tan suit with a coffee stain down the front. not the best impression, you know?

But in most places in America I've been to - someone tells you "Excuse me. This is a non-smoking area. I'm going to have to ask you to put that out." They don't haul you off in handcuffs.

never seen someone given a ticket for anything? where do you live?

Long Island, specifically. I've seen people cited for parking illegally, causing a public disturbance, and speeding. I have never seen police enforce simple measures like no smoking or no eating bans without simple warnings. If someone repeatedly insists on their infraction despite being warned, then all bets are off. I've never seen anyone ticketed for jaywalking, even though it is rampant in NYC.

I'd be annoyed to think my taxpayer dollars are being used so police can arrest 12 year olds for eating a french fry.

key points:

1) I don't frequently take the metro but I am well aware of the no food/no drinks rule. As northzax said, people KNOW the rules and that they are subject to arrest if they break the rules.

2) as northzax said, if the kid had just stopped eating when told, she wouldn't have been arrested.

3) Why aren't you guys thinking about where you draw the line if you let stuff like this go for one person? OK, person X gets to eat her fries because you don't want to make a big deal about that, so person Y gets to eat his hamburger, but I can't eat my hot dog? There are tons of people riding the metro; you can't enforce the law for one person when you're letting others get away with something. And when that happens you have one filthy, rat and bug infested subway that none of you would want to ride.

4) If the law is objectionable, change the law, but don't pick on the cops who are told they have to enforce it, and do their jobs. Lenny Bruce had a great routine about this principle. As northzax said, people in DC don't want to have inconsiderate others eating and drinking on the metro; there are plenty of other places for them to do it. They don't want the law changed.

5) This is not a human rights issue that matters. EVERYONE can control whether they are arrested for this by not eating on a public transit system; there was no evidence this kid was treated inappropriately. And heaven knows most Americans don't need to take steps to make sure that they can eat at all times. We should pick our battles carefully and focus on real injustice, real abuses of power, etc.

First of all, northzax didn't say anything about the kid's response until halfway through the thread. If in fact the kid responded with an "FU" that changes everything I said before that point came up. I made that point twice.

I also never said that the kid should have been allowed to eat or that the officer was wrong for approaching the girl. The point was that the original story made it seem like the kid was arrested and handcuffed for nothing more than eating a fry. The rule is fine. The enforcement of it was the issue. The point I had all along was that all it took was the cop saying, "Hey kid, no eating on the train" to handle the problem. If the kid responded with an "FU" then the citation probably should have included disobeying an officer or something, instead of only eating, but that's really neither here nor there.

If the cops handcuffed a kid for no other reason than eating a fry (which appears not to be the case), they should be fired. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the kid never said "FU". The problem is that the "No Eating" rule is a simple trivial regulation. It can happen to honest people in everyday life. If you can get arrested and handcuffed for eating a fry, can't it also happen for something like talking too loud in the library? Walking into a beachfront store, talking on the cell and forgetting you don't have shoes on? What about having 11 items in the express lane? Playing golf without a collared shirt? Stepping into a crosswalk before the walk light comes on? Loitering?

As for the police, I would hope that police can exercise decent judgment both in terms of knowing WHAT the rules are and HOW to enforce them. Handcuffing a 12-year old girl for eating is not the right way to handle that situation. In fact, in some cicrumstances, it's a good way to start a riot. A cop can be correct in knowing the law, but I hope that I wouldn't get billy-clubbedin the back of the head if my parking meter runs out. Again, if the kid caused a disturbance and said "FU", I can understand a little better. But we'd all be in jail if you think eating a fry on the Metro requires handcuffs.

The human rights issue involved is to be able to go through life without being worried about being detained for something completely trivial. If I accidentally do something wrong at the wrong time, I would hope that I wouldn't have to worry about the handcuffs coming out.

I swear -- some of you act like the Metro is the Sistine Chapel or something. The rule is fine, but let's not act like this is some precious work of art that needs full-time protection.

a criminal record for a french fry. Would a verbal warning have worked without long term trauma from handcuffing and public humiliation? Yes.

Honestly. The trauma of this coffee incident seems to be affecting you. Please, seek therapy. With help, you can go to starbucks without curling into a fetal position.

Again, where does smoking fit into this equation? I never brought it up.

what if she'd been smoking? I see drunk people get cited for smoking on the Metro quite often. it's the same sign. or is one rule more important than the other?

thanks for the pop psychology. I would now like to arbitrarily change the laws of your city to fit my wishes, even though I don't live there and never come visit. that cool with you?

The point is, she was 12. She wasn't smoking, she was eating a fry. The harm to others was most likley minimal. In the scheme of things, it is not a big deal. She was not drunk, smoking, or selling her body for Now and Laters.

Something tells me that when you invite friends over for dinner, they decline the invitation. Let me guess. You make people take their shoes off before they enter your home. Again, I must repeat, Shit Happens. You are not speaking to some bumpkin from a "flyover state" so don't even try to try that little gem on me.

Now, I am going to go out in the real world. I have to live with the fear that I will see someone eating, or god forbid, smoking...but with the new meds, I am somewhat sure I can deal with it.

no, I am not an analy clean person. not even close. it's actually laughable if you saw my desk right now. will you come bail me out when I respond to a police officer who tells me to stop something with "fuck you"? please?

really? you will? excellent. I personally mind sitting in someone's mess much more than the smell of smoke. so I'd rather I could smoke on the metro than eat.

I'm sorry for you that you have given up on criminal activity in your town. can I come throw a dirty diaper on your lawn? sure, it's against the law, but it's not really harming anyone else, is it?

or maybe you're actually from DC, and you think they should lift the food ban? that I'd like to hear about.

Having been the victim of a crime, I believe that resources should be given to those more serious than what this obviously was. That is why parking tickets are not punished by the death penalty.

Given up on crime? Well you just know so much about me, dear.

For the record, I live in one of the largest cities in the nation and I am so glad that not everyone is as sensitive as you obviously are. Please, don't come to my city.

Not that the arrest was wise. The ruling was also unanimous, so it doesn't work to single him out as outside the judicial mainstream. I suppose one could always take this approach if the plan is to make liberals look ridiculous.

I guess that means we should ban french fries everywhere now because it might get on your suit. Newspaper ink runs off. Let's ban those too.

No offense, but remind me never to meet you.

but consider moving to DC, where the rest of the country knows better than you how to do things.

I promise I'll put out my cigarette on your suit right before your interview. It'll betoo bad, but the metro's kinda crowded, these sorts of accidents happen. you don't mind buying a new one, do you?

and no, ink doesn't really rub off on plastic.

Can't say I thought I'd see that in writing any time soon.

I've commuted in four major American cities, including DC. Remarkably the rail systems that did allow eating and drinking weren't that bad either. I couldn't have made it in Boston without my coffee on the train. I loved the smell of the commuter car on winter mornings. Hot coffee, donuts and newsprint. Probably the only thing that made the Government Center station worthwhile was the food vendors.

Never had a drycleaning problem either. Though there was that one time I sat in chewing gum. You guessed it. DC Metro. Yellow line to be exact.

I'm sure plenty of responsible adults have read the paper on the train and absent-mindedly opened the sandwich or chips or soda that they had in their shoulder bag. I can understand the rule against eating -- if that's what the people want, so be it. But I can't agree with the draconian measures to enforce it. Anything that results in a 12-year old kid getting handcuffed for a french fry is not common sense.

I assume that newspapers are allowed on the Metro. Maybe I'm wrong -- the ink might smudge off on the seat.

try to open a bag of chips, the people around you will yell at you. no, people don't absentmindedly eat on the metro. doesn't happen, there has never been food or drink allowed, it's announced in the stations, there are signs everywhere, oh, and there are no trash cans so the few amounts of food that do get eaten are thrown on the floor. lovely.

I agree with the law that says police should detain minors until they can be released into the custody of their parents or guardians. how do you cite someone without ID? what sort of citations should be issued? ten french fries? a large pizza? smoking? where's the line that says the police should cite her?

I DO NOT agree with handcuffing or detaining a child unless something serious has taken place. EVER.

that the police should talk to the parents of the child? where is the line? seriously. breaking a window? two windows? underage drinking? smoking? drug use? breaking curfew? disregarding a lawful order from an officer? I don't know where the line should be, and now it is at something that will get you jail time. it's made cops lives easier in DC, let me tell you.

I agree to all of those things you just mentioned, but all of them are things people don't routinely do. Kids don't routinely break windows in their every day lives. They eat pretty often, though.

I will also say this - if the kid kept eating food after being warned by the officer for the sole purpose of causing a disturbance, I'd agree to the detention as well. The kid was warned and didn't respond appropriately.

If the kid speaks too loudly at the library or in a movie theater, or eats a french fry where she isn't supposed to, or runs in the mall, or does something that everyday people do -- just at the wrong time, then god no. Just say, "you aren't allowed to eat on this train" and leave it at that.

It isn't even a question in my mind. I don't want to live in a society where 12 year olds are handcuffed over minutia. It's common sense.

the reason for the citation was the "fuck you" in response to the officer. they warn people all the time, usually it's only the drunk or beligerrent ones that get cited. and "fuck you" is belligerent, I think. Better for this kid to learn at age 12 and at 18, right?

It changes everything. I've been taking this from the perspective of a parent. The way the story was told, I would have been furious at the police for handcuffing my daughter over a french fry. If what you say is true, I would have been furious at my daughter for talking to a police officer that way.

Makes my blood boil

:eyes: Maybe your city is the problem.

the no food or drink on public transportation? the no citing of a minor without a guardian present? or the everyone taken into custody is handcuffed?

...it's just the beaurocrats trying to make themselves look important, which they are not.

I do appreciate your commitment to the letter of the law but unfortunately I find such black and white thinking to be dangerously lacking in compassion and creativity.

Can I assume the no eating rule would extend to nursing mothers on the train as well? ;)

the SCOTUS nomination of Roberts. It doesn't fracking matter what your precious DC Metro ordinances or laws say. Not a whit. What does matter is the reaction to the concept of a judge ruling in favor of an officer who handcuffed a twelve-year-old girl for eating a french fry.

Any reasonable person would see that this is not an arrestable offense. One can fairly convincingly argue to the unwashed masses that the use of handcuffs would constitute an arrest, regardless of whether or not this is actually true. We can thank the TV show "COPS" for that. Therefore, bringing it up in the context of the SCOTUS nomination of Roberts makes perfect sense: it will- perhaps unjustly, perhaps justly- outrage a lot of people if they hear that Bush's SCOTUS nominee has no problem with police cuffing children for eating in the wrong place.

That's what's at issue here. The actual laws upon which he ruled have little to do with the public concept of the ruling's result. Why? Because the vast majority of the public does not know the law.

In this case, that works in our favor. By simplifying the issue to "Roberts ruled in favor of a cop that handcuffed a twelve-year-old girl for eating a french fry in public", he looks that much more suspect to the common man who does not know your DC Metro laws or ordinances.

Alas, if it is indeed true that the kid swore at the cop, the issue becomes easier to deal with (if not irrelevant). But leaving that part out of it for the sake of argument, it takes a lot more than a 10-second sound bite to explain why this ruling is okay. The general public is going to have a hard time wrapping its head around the image of a 12-year old in handcuffs over a french fry, and someone on the Supreme Court thinking that's appropriate.

The right has used MUCH, MUCH less than this for political means. Think about it -- the whole "He voted for it, before he voted against it" thing was a huge factor in the election, even though it had a simple explanation (but not simple enough for a soundbite). We're still consistently hearing that Joe Wilson lied about whether Dick Cheney sent him, even though he never said any such thing.

DC has some horrible laws.

You have CLEAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (which is caused by some extremely strict and some would say asinine enforcement practices),

AND

you are usually in contention for "MURDER CAPITAL OF THE NATION" with one of the worst 911 response times in the country???

You folks have some seriously screwed up priorities.

:eyes:

we get all 435...

and it's worth noting that DC's crime rate has dropped dramatically. your murder capital is now New Orleans, DC's not even top 15.

Robert Bork got 'Borked' but John Roberts gets 'McDonalded'

or

John Roberts escapes 'Borking', caught 'Frying'

Judge Roberts to 12 YO Girl, "Let her Fry"

and more serious targets.

At the same time, I think that those issues are typical left v right battlegrounds and won't resonate as anything unusual with the general public. The french fry case is more unusual.

That was the point I was originally trying to make, although the thread got off track, which I am responsible for as much as anyone. After 15 or so months of posting/lurking I actually had my first DU pissing match. It feels a little weird.

But seriously, I think there is merit to this. That's a pretty harsh thing to endorse.

Mind you, this was long before freedom fries ......

http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=2154

northzax's above. Zero Tolerance is an insidious method of eliminating the ability for responsible decision making. It may appear to make things fair and equitable but it does nothing of the sort. It robs everyone of the recognition that while "all men are created equal" they are also created different and circumstances are unique.

Children who do not have the opportunity to see adults weigh advantages and risks, costs and benefits are denied the proper modeling to become compassionate rational decision-makers as they mature.

Personally, I'd rather risk the charge of being discriminatory than being a dispassionate idiot.

you can hardly single someone out for an unanimous ruling. Talk about looking desperate.

It's a crowded boat.

First of all, the unanimous decision was 3-0 -- not exactly a huge sample. And everyone's opinions and votes in law are viewed individually on their own merits.

Secondly, I'm talking about what things may end up resonating with the American people more than I am about what has merit. I would personally rather see the media discuss the more significant issues at stake, but if you are talking about what sort of things may sway his confirmation, the fact that he is a Federalist Society member who doubts the consitutionality of the Environmental Protection Act -- well, that won't matter to Johnny Sixpack. Or if it does, it will just come off as the typical left vs. right battlegrounds and they'll tune it out. A 12 year old in handcuffs for eating a french fry has more teeth with ordinary people, even if there is legal justification for the decision he made.

So I have no clue where the "looking desperate" point even comes from. I'm attempting to raise a sociological point on what sorts of things matter to every day Americans. If mentioning this sort of thing is "desperate" than the Republicans have been desperate for years. They do this stuff all the time and they keep winning fricking elections. And I'm not even suggesting the Democrats use this strategy, I'm just saying that this case may hurt him through no fault of ours. Of course, I have learned more details since posting this thread and doubt that it has the teeth I once thought it did.

I swear I want to bang my head against a wall today.

you're badly mistaken. The ruling was that it was not a violation of civil rights, not that the arrest was wise. I suppose you could always mount an effort for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to eat french fries in public.

If you don't have a legitimate disagreement with Roberts, why oppose him? If you're concerned about his stand on Roe, make that plain. But this is simply idiotic. Is it really possible that their is such a dearth of political acumen on the left? No wonder the right trounces us. I can't imagine why anyone would suggest such an idea unless the goal was to humiliate the left.

And John Kerry's first vote for the 87 billion appropriations bill to Iraq was different than the 87 billion that he subsequently voted against. Likewise, the weapons bills that he voted down were also voted down by a ton of of Republiacns. Yet the right used these misrepresentations to paint Kerry in a specific light. That's how politics works these days. You take a complex issue, break it down to its simplest form for the lay person, and let teh other side try to explain their way out of it. I watched the last election get swayed on annoying talking points that were easily reffutable, but which still stuck.

Again, I did not suggest this as a strategy for anyone. I just thought out loud that it might happen this way -- that the public might not support someone who approved of the arresting of a 12 year old over a french fry. So your "this humiliates the left angle" is completely irrelevant. I don't understand why you can't grasp that concept. It's like you are having an argument with somebody else who is making completely different points than I am.

You somehow think there is something politically savvy in this, that it would make good media spin. My point is that it is quite the opposite and will make anyone who advances the argument look idiotic. How could that be irrelevant? Is your point to oppose the Roberts nomination or discredit the effort to oppose him? This can only accomplish the latter.

The Kerry vote issue worked because he was foolish enough to give them a devastating sound bite. And he never was able to give an explanation of his various votes on the war that was convincing.

You want to find something on Roberts, I suggest you do your homework.
Read the rulings in which he dissented. And if you can't come up with something better than this, you're in big trouble.

i don't think so. even here, some support the use of a tasers on children...even handcuffed children. and after all: it was the law.
even here, people will defend that decision.

:eyes:

The taser crap has to stop NOW! There was no need to cuff a kid for this. This is a police state, not America! :argh:

some are one of two issue 'liberals'...a BIG part of why "liberal" has become a fairly meaningless term.
my rule of thumb: if the rw supports it, i don't.
that works remarkably well.

it is against the law to eat or drink on the buses and subways. But people violate that law all the time. You go onto any bus here in DC, and you see all kinds of food wrappers and materials. I always get angry when people violate that rule, because I feel like they don't care about keeping out public transportation clean.

But I do not agree with arresting the girl for eating a single french fry. That just defies logic. They could have easily given her a written and/or verbal warning.

the law stated that the police could not issue a written citation to a minor without a guardian present. That's why they had to take her into custody until her mother was contacted. The cop was following the law as it was written at the time.

5 years ago, there was little to no trash on the Metro, before they took out the trash cans and recycling bins on every platform for 'security'

About them not being to give a written citation to a minor with a guardian present. I had no idea of that!

He wasn't.

:freak:

I wish the hell they had done something about the goddamn reefer smoking on the buses going down Georgia Avenue NW.

Every day I had to ride that bus to school it was like getting a contact high..... :grr:

Shows he followed the law and didn't act on his personal view...which would have been easy to do in this case!

Freedom Fries bad, go to jail.

Treason good, receive a medal.