I have a problem with folks being penalized by the government in this way and others without having been found guilty or liable in a legitimate court of law.
A restraining order is a nearly automatic formality in domestic dispute cases in many localities, whether or not they involve violence, so they are not, in my opinion, due process.
Other things that stick in pretty much the same place in my craw are things like garnishments and seizures for tax collection purposes. Any other debtor must sue you and win in court by proving it's case before doing those things, and I think it's entirely fair for the same to be demanded of the government. The government once stole the contents of a bank account of mine in this way, based on a debt supposedly owed by a family member. I got it back, but the problem was that the burden was on me to prove the government was not entitled to it, and that is just wrong.
In the case of restraining orders filed as a part of divorce and other domestic dispute proceedings, it is my understanding that they are issued based on evidence provided only by the party requesting the order, with the potential restrainee most often not present or even served with notice of a "hearing". Such a proceeding ought not deprive one of property or civil liberties, because there is no trial (due process).
Dave in Eugene
The minute the order is issued, VAWA kicks in. However, the respondent is not present at the original hearing, just the petitioner. I have a very large problem with depriving anyone of a civil right on just the say-so of one person where there is no ability to put on your own evidence and/or cross examine the peititioner.
But Ted Olsen doesn't think Emerson should go up...and if you ain't with us your against us, right? Who am I? I'm not the solicitor general so I must not know what I'm talking about, right?
Bunk. This "shift" in position is just an attempt to sooth Bush's supporters and not cause him to lose our support....and it won't work.