Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
How many people has Terry Schiavo murdered?
:::::crickets::::::
Obviously, the two situations are not comparable.
"But they found a basis for their decision in the constitution."
What was that basis? Do you know? Just because the SC decides something doesn't mean they actually have a constitutional basis for it. Or have you been keeping your head in the sand the last 35 years or so?
Once again, I don't think it a) COULD happen or b) SHOULD happen.
I'd like to have people up there that know what the hell they are doing. I wouldn't have a non-doctor operate on me on the theory that they can always read a book, and I wouldn't want a non-lawyer Supreme Court justice for the same reason.
But as I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has held in the past that a criminal defendant has a right to an appeal before a legally trained judge, so I don't think this would fly, although query who would have standing to challenge this.
I agree. That case is particularly horrific.
Great. Guess I spoke too soon. :(
I agree, but Scalia still cites to British law when determining constitutional issues.
My point of all this is that citing to foreign law isn't the horror that people make it out to be. Should it be binding? No. Should it be considered? Sure.
Consistency of principle (valuing human life) demands that a high price be paid for those who purposefully end a human life without good cause.
Let us hope that it will be the Scotus members and their familes who will reap what they have sown.
No, but you are.
Guilt has squat to do with this. My point is lost on people with closed minds and agendas. It is much bigger than petty BS.
I'll leave you to rot in the past, and in the ambiguity of social morays.
IMPEACH THE 5 RADICALS
"Fine. Get the law changed in your legislature. The American people have a right to elective representation on decisions like these."
Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, of course.
Then amend the Eighth Amendment. If there's such a popular groundswell of support for executing minor criminals, it ought to be easy.
LOL, and what would that be. I admit to being a sinner but I don't know you from a hole in the wall. So tell me, what did I do now?
Guilt has squat to do with this. My point is lost on people with closed minds and agendas. It is much bigger than petty BS.
Your point failed. Don't whine about it, it's unbecoming.
I'll leave you to rot in the past, and in the ambiguity of social morays.
How did eels get into this?
"I thought moral issues were supposed to be decided by elected reps."
You thought wrong.
See the majority opinion - they did indeed mention the weight of international opinion against executing juveniles (who are often the most dangerous and completely immoral killers of all.) As I posted on another thread, term limits and re-election requirements are the only real solution to this frightening problem. Those who live in states with Republican Senators (I live in California. . .) need to REALLY put the heat on. With all the revolutionary stuff going on, now's the time!!
Not quite true. Scalia only cites to English common law when the phrasing in the Constitution derives from same, ie: due process.
Big difference.
He does like Blackstone though, I'll give you that. But he doesn't consider the mores of other nations whne interpreting the Constitution. That is the crux of the matter.
Five of them voted for this piece of junk ;)
Yeah, Andrew Jackson: "Justice (Taney?) has ruled, now let him enforce." Pretty cool.
According to Justice Kennedy such issues are to be decided by elitist liberal European legal scholars whose views are to be forced on the several United States and their 280 million people without any debate or input by those states and citizens, through the expedient of five unelected life-tenured liberal Supreme Court Justices.
We are being made part of the EU on the whim of five Supreme Court Justices.
If he killed brutally and premeditatedly, he should be killed. Then his parents should be either killed or imprisoned as accesories to the murder. They failed in their duty to raise a child and not an animal.
No, because he's just a kid, he can't think like an adult and understand what he did. No one wants to execute 11 year olds.
I've met plenty of 11 year olds who were adult enough in their thinking to do evil. They are no longer 'just a kid'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.