You be the Judge

We recently had a case here in California that reminded me of the importance of this election...

In a small town library in Central California, a librarian saw a 39 year old man watching child pornography on the library's public computer. When he left, she asked her supervisor if she should call the police. Her supervisor said "No let's keep it a private matter and speak to him if he does it again." This response was not acceptable to the librarian so she contacted the police and told them the story. They asked her to call them if he ever showed up and did it again, since it was illegal. He did come in again, and logged on to a child porn website. She called the police, they came and caught the man viewing nude pictures of young boys and he was arrested and charged with viewing child pornography.

When the supervisor found out that the police had come and arrested the man, she was livid and fired the librarian. This was a County library and the County Supervisors supported the firing. Their reason - the librarian had violated the man's "privacy rights". There will be a lot of litigation from both sides on this case, but in a talk show debate, a liberal ACLU lawyer, although agreeing that viewing child porn was against the law, argued that: "The mans privacy rights under the constitution were more important than the child porn issue". Unbelievable.

This "privacy" issue is also the sticking point in the U.S. Congress with their reluctance to renew the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA). By not renewing this bill our intelligence agencies will find it very difficult to monitor phone calls from suspected terrorists overseas. In the meantime, the safety of millions of US citizens could be put in jeopardy if we cannot track terrorist activities. I am in complete agreement with the right to privacy for every citizen - but within reason. We have to protect ourselves - do we want another 911? This is probably another issue that will go all the way to the Supreme Court for a decision.

Here is the point of this blog:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice J.P. Stevens is 88 years old. In addition, by next year, five other of the (liberal) justices will be in their 70's. So the next President could have the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 new "Supremes" during his (or her) first term, and possibly another 2 or 3 if they serve a second term. What kind of judges do you think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will appoint? No question it will be those with the philosophy of this ACLU "privacy" advocate discussed above. John McCain says he will appoint strict Constitutionalists - not judges that legislate from the bench. Presidents come and go, but Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. These new Supreme Court Justices could shape America for the next generation or two, and if they have the philosophy of a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (and liberals in general), think about what this country could become...

Could viewing child porn, or conducting any other illegal activities on the Internet become OK? Could criminals, instead of being punished, become "victims of society"? Will you be able to keep ownership of your property if the government wants it? Could environmentalism and regulatory agencies rule our lives? Could illegal immigrants be allowed to enter our country en mass and receive all the rights of a US citizen?

You be the judge.