Comments about ‘Hate-crimes bill unconstitutional’

This sounds like lawyerly nitpicking. There are more important issues to worry about right now, such as health care and the economy.

Senator Hatch enjoys free government health care, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Its time for him to do something about the millions of citizens who cant afford insurance.

This whole hate crimes idea is stupid. If somone assaults you or kills you it isn't out of love.
We just need to prosecute all crimes the same way, to the fullest extent!

lets start with hatchs last statement which is a glaring example of the inaccuracy of the entire piece. The Utah legislature has turned a blind eye over and over again to hate crimes bills and only agreed to pass anything after watering it down to the point of being completely ineffective and unenforceable so to claim that states do not turn a blind eye is "at best" laughable.

We need to find a loophole, so we can continue to hate!

"... the fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question."

This is hogwash. And this sentence is what Hatch's argument comes down to.

Mr. Hatch, are you willing to take "people of faith" as a protected class off the existing hate crimes laws? Are you willing to deprecate those laws that classify hate crimes against religion?

I didn't think so.

Sen. Hatch is irrelevant.

As a premium member of the nations foremost hate organization, it is perfectly logical and natural for Orrin Hatch to be against any government action that might threaten their positions.

That said however, except in the case of conservative politicians, it could very difficult in some cases to determine whether a crime is based on hate or just plain greed.

Rather than hate, I would like to see punishments adjusted by the comparison of the individuals in terms of size, age, and capacity. Big guys should not beat up little guys, young guys should not beat up old people and smart guys should not take advantage of those less gifted.

In the sprit of equal opportunity and justice for all, inequality should be considered in the dispensing of justice.

He writes: "Constitutional issues aside, the picture of a jury deliberating over the specific thoughts of a defendant should be enough to make supporters second-guess the wisdom of this approach." Orrin, as a former trial attorney, you know that juries deliberate the thoughts (i.e., intent - a requisite for most crimes) everyday on a wide range of cases. This leads me to believe that this is political posturing. And if it is not constitutional, that's why we have the courts. You know better. This from a man who advocated a new Constitutional Convention....

I'm very liberal but don't like these laws. I'm uncomfortable with punishing thoughts rather than actions. While I strongly dislike HATE in all it's forms, I think you have a right to hate as we should not try to control your thoughts. We already have laws that control your actions. If you act on that hate and harm someone you are punished.

To successfully convict on a hate crime you are somehow getting inside a persons mind and saying "this is the reason they did this". I'm not sure you can accurately do that and I don't think it matters WHY they did it, they are punished for WHAT they did.

Hate is wrong, hate is stupid, but should not be a crime. You have a right to "think" whatever you want.

DEAR SENATOR HATCH:

Why the sudden opposition to the hate crimes law NOW? The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them. That isn't going to change when the law is expanded to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way).

Until conservatives such as yourself mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, Ill continue to see your arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disingenuous.

Didn't Hatch vote to support this legislation several years ago? I swear he did. He's right this time, though. Punishing someone for their thoughts is unconstitutional. If I want to torch a white guy's house (I'm white), I should get the same punishment as if I torched a black guy's house. Hate is a freedom and needs to be protected.

The first amendment is all about preventing the government from regulating the information we receive. It also prevents the government for punishing a person for what they believe. The enhanced penalties provided for in hate crimes laws punish people for what they believe. That alone makes them unconstitutional in my mind.

I have it on good authority that the real motivation behind hate crimes legislation is money. Liberal groups are protected by these laws while conservative groups are not. A person is a victim of a "hate crime" and they file a law suit. If they win they have more money to fuel their political agenda.

.....such as persecuting financial supporters of Prop 8? This should be covered by even a basic, stripped-down, legal code.

Hate crimes, such as the infringement of free speech, when exercised by your opponents, should also be covered by the Bill of Rights.

They don't appear to be, however, and yet you don't need new legislation to accomplish it, just the enforcement of existing law, including the Supreme Law of the Land (that's the Constitution, liberals!)

More neoconservative ideology that it is not against the law to hate people, religions, races, sexual preferences ...
so hate away!

In this country, we have the right to "freedom of assembly" (1st Amendment to the Constitution).
If I want to associate with the KKK, NAACP, Extreme Environmentalists, or any other organization (with very few restrictions) then I am allowed. In every organization, there will be some people who hate (usually a fringe minority, sometimes more, like in the KKK).
I can hate if I want (I hate lima beans). I can think how I want. This bill would limit too many of my freedoms.

Most of the haters, such as you, are on the left. You hate everyone and everything that disagrees with you, all while hypocritically carrying the banner of "diversity" and "love." Your platitudes are getting old and boring.

This bill does nothing to limit your right to hate - it simply makes it easier to more fully punish those who act on that hate.

There is a difference between destroying a church because I am high on drugs and destroying a church because I want members of that church to be afraid to go to church on Sunday. Yes, the financial impact may be the same, but the emotional and psychological impact is much greater in the second situation than it is in the first situation.

In another article, Hatch states that he is against this because it has the potential to make all rapes hate crimes.

Umm - all rapes are hate crimes.

In my opinion, the ability to prosecute rape as a hate crime is all the more reason to support this legislation.

anon 9:46. leftist hate's OK then, is it, since it's politically correct?

look past your own hatred of the right and you'll see that you are in essence saying you're OK with thought police.

to quote Pink Floyd - we don't need no thought control

Then everyone who destroys a church will just claim to have been high on drugs at the time, as well as misunderstood and abused by parents etc.