Next Nut Case up for Review . . .

[Dom]

OK, let's make a simple law here, all those that vote this stuff in, pay for all future operations out of their own pocket!! We'd see how long that one stood. Nah, easier for the taxpayers to pay for it . . . Too bad Sen Scott Brown was one of the few who had common sense.

By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 26, 2:21 PM ET

BOSTON - A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it all.

The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

The case of Michelle — formerly Robert — Kosilek is being closely watched across the country by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, and not one has succeeded in persuading a judge to order a sex-change operation.

The Massachusetts Correction Department is vigorously fighting Kosilek's request for surgery, saying it would create a security nightmare and make Kosilek a target for sexual assault.

An Associated Press review of the case, including figures obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews, found that the Correction Department and its outside health care provider have spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about an operation that would cost about $20,000.

The duration and expense of the case have outraged some lawmakers who insist that taxpayers should not have to pay for inmates to have surgery that most private insurers reject as elective.

"They are prisoners. They are there because they've broken the law," said Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who unsuccessfully introduced a bill to ban sex-change surgery for inmates. "Other folks, people who want to get these types of surgeries, they have to go through their insurance carrier or save up for it and do it independently. Yet if you are in prison, you can do it for nothing? That doesn't make a lot of sense."

Continued at:
YAHOO NEWS

[fabsroman]

And exactly why didn't the "No sex change in prison" bill not pass. How is it that something like that didn't pass? Because politicians are too worried about getting votes from every possible section of society. Here, they are worried about getting votes from gays.

The same goes for why the "English is the official language of the USA" did not get passed. Sad to say that both my Representatives didn't vote for it because we have a lot of hispanics in Maryland and they wouldn't want to lose their vote.

Politicians trying to please everybody is the problem. These morons are so worried about doing the right thing for everybody so they can get re-elected, that they are doing the wrong thing for the country or their state by doing nothing.

As far as $52,000 being spent on witnesses in this case, where the operation would only cost $20,000, it makes complete sense. While this single operation would only cost $20,000, what happens after the precedence is set in Court and 100 more inmates ask for the surgery and the state cannot say no. Then the cost is $2,000,000. The media is terrible with their reporting.

[huntingvet]

One of the good things about California (there aren't many) is that the populus can introduce legislation that is voted on by the voting public. They show up on our ballots during election time as Propositions. It bypasses the inability of the Assembly or Senate to introduce or pass legislation due to politics and puts it back in the hands of the people.

The drawbacks are that sometimes unreasonable demands are put on the government - i.e. more entitlements without financial support through taxation. That's what almost made our state bankrupt and cost Governor Gray Davis his job (although he didn't deserve to be there anyway).

I wonder if somehow on a national level Propositions were introducable - would allow the public to introduce and even pass legislation such as making English the official language, prohibiting sex change surgeries for inmates, etc. I'm sure it would take some amendments to the Constitution though.

[fabsroman]

I think an amendment to the Constitution would need to be voted on by the public in the first place. God only knows who would be responsible for putting that amendment on the ballot. If Congress would have to get it on the ballot, there is no chance of it. Do you think politicians want us sheep deciding how to run this country?

Plus, there could be some huge problems with allowing us to put in our own propositions. Imagine if somebody put something in there that would get rid of income taxes. Most of the public would probably vote for it because they are only thinking about themselves, and then where would the country be.

[buckhunter]

Having just spend some time on Jury Duty in Federal court in The People's Republice of Mass and much to my suprise I was impressed with how it run and how the Presiding Judge handled everything. Went into the whole thing with shall we say a Piss Poor Attitude and departed impressed. Unfortunally thats not how the state court system works. Anything that comes out of this state is just plain screwed up. Recent vote in the so called legisture denied the votes the right, yes right to ammend our consitution. Socialism is here my friends. One thing they havn't denied us yet is our right to vote them in and vote them OUT. I suspect the next election around here will see a lot of new faces which will be corrupted in short order.