Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court's illegal ruling (on cap punishment) should TRIGGER THE NUCLEAR OPTION
SF Chronicle ^ | Mar 2 05 | churchillbuff

Posted on 03/02/2005 9:23:47 AM PST by churchillbuff

You telling me, Justice Kennedy, that they didn't execute juvenile murderers in the time when the Constitution was enacted? I don't belive it. (Actually Kennedy doesn't even ask that question -- he doesn't care what the people who wrote the constitution believed).

What this travesty of a decision shows is that the NUCLEAR OPTION is ESSENTIAL to get us some decent judges on federal courts. If the Republican senators are afraid of the Democrats, then it's time for them to be made even MORE AFRAID of the REPUBLICAN GRASS ROOTS!! MAYBE A MARCH ON WASHINGTON, TARGETING OUR OWN REPBULICAN SENATORS AND DEMANDING THAT THEY GROW SPINES?

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: constitutionaloption; court; evilundertherobes; meninblack; nominations; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 03/02/2005 9:23:48 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I would be that the first SCJC replacement is a compromise candidate, because GWB will never get a conservative to a floor vote in the Senate. Frist can't do it.

That, regrettably, will give the liberals on the court the majority. They already have a justice or two who can waver and decide either way.

Many on FR keep defending Frist's incompetence. Last term it was 'oh just wait until the GOP picks up a few more seats.' Well, now the moan is, 'just wait for '06 when they get a few more seats.' Why did the Dems never have a problem when they were in the majority by only 1?
2 posted on 03/02/2005 9:32:59 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Why did the Dems never have a problem when they were in the majority by only 1?"""

Because the same Republican senators who won't stand up to the Democrats when the GOP is in the majority, wouldn't stand up to the Democrats when the GOP was in the minority. Contrariwise, the Democrats play street-tough whether they're in the majority or the minority.

3 posted on 03/02/2005 9:36:51 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character,'' said Justice Anthony Kennedy in Tuesday's majority opinion. Compared to adults, he said, "a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.''"

There are those who, in a way, expressed their indifference to this ruling saying "It's OK, these criminals will spend life in prison". This statement indicates clearly where the thrust of the supporters of the ruling are going with this - 'Rehabilitation' and eventual release back into Society.

What is missing from this hope for the eventual rehabilitation of these minors are statistics regarding recidivism - i.e., What is the rate at which youthful offenders, released after such 'Rehabilitation' go on to commit more, often worse, offenses after their release? I don't have the precise numbers but I recall that the rate is very high and I have no reason to think any released as a result of this ruling will be any less inclined to future violent acts than those already unleashed on the public.

IMO yet another victory of the rights of criminals over the right of Society to be safe. This artificial break between Youth and Adulthood ignoring the nature and severity of the offense is a farce.

4 posted on 03/02/2005 9:39:41 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

What ever happened to "if you're old enough to do the crime...you're old enough to do the time"? If a "kid" commits an adult crime, then they have already surrendered any claim to be a "child".


5 posted on 03/02/2005 10:03:48 AM PST by RasterMaster (Saddam's family were WMD's - He's behind bars & his sons are DEAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"Supreme Court's illegal arrogant ruling"

Except for that technicality, I agree with you on this one.

6 posted on 03/02/2005 10:09:11 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
" Many on FR keep defending Frist's incompetence" Frist is not only incompetent he is a jacka@@. This man has not guts.
7 posted on 03/02/2005 10:19:39 AM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

The thing that burns me up about this court ruling is how the majority based their opinion on U.N. year-of-the-child prattle and foreign laws. That's the same thing they did last year in Lawrence v. Texas.

If that crack keeps widening, we're going down fast ! I'm ready to take action to boot them. Anybody got any ideas?


8 posted on 03/02/2005 10:23:54 AM PST by redhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Not going to happen. Frist doesn't have the balls.

Now, PLEASE let him prove me wrong.


9 posted on 03/02/2005 10:26:48 AM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I don't know enuff about the "Nuclear Option" to decide if I support it or not, but I DO believe that Congress should begin IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against liberal judges. I have heard that members of the Supreme Court have based their decisions on "international law", the laws of other countries, & our changing moral climate--rather than using the Constitution as the source for our laws.

This is an OUTRAGE, & I think this has got to stop! The Founding Fathers gave impeachment powers to Congress for a PURPOSE, & they should use them. It doesn't only apply to the President being impeached, 'cuz ALL constitutional officers of the US should face this threat in order to keep their office, obey their constitutional Oaths, & behave themselves.


10 posted on 03/02/2005 10:28:46 AM PST by libertyman (It's time to make marijuana legal AGAIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
I would be that the first SCJC replacement is a compromise candidate, because GWB will never get a conservative to a floor vote in the Senate

The first replacement will be Bush's best chance to get a conservative candidate, seeing that Rehnquist will almost certainly be the first justice to step down. If Bush has to settle for a compromise candidate to replace part of the conservative bloc on the court, then we're in big trouble.

11 posted on 03/02/2005 10:30:00 AM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Imagine Frist trying to get a Chief Justice nominee through. Unless it is a compromise, no way. He can't even get 20 other justices through.

And anyone with any sense knows the Dems didn't do an all out attack against the Sec State and Atty General just so they would have plenty of ammo for the first SC (and probably CJ).

They (Dems) will hit whomever is nominated with both barrels---unless it is a candidate they want on the SC.
12 posted on 03/02/2005 10:42:43 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
They (Dems) will hit whomever is nominated with both barrels---unless it is a candidate they want on the SC.

Oh, I don't doubt that. Because the Democrats know that if they can force Bush to accept a compromise candidate (e.g. a Souter) as a replacement for Rehnquist, then that would leave only 2 conservatives on the court, and we'd have a liberal Supreme Court for at least the next generation. They will have won the ultimate battle. I can't see Bush caving on this. I think Frist will use the "nuclear (constitutional) option" if needed for Supreme Court nominees. In fact, I think he's been intentionally saving it just for that purpose.

13 posted on 03/02/2005 10:49:10 AM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: libertyman
I DO believe that Congress should begin IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against liberal judges.

Do you think there are 67 votes in the Senate to convict?

14 posted on 03/02/2005 10:50:42 AM PST by You Dirty Rats (Mindless BushBot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I'm a conservative who opposes the death penalty... So I dont really think this is a conservative-liberal issue.

I oppose the death penalty because it cannot be corrected if a mistake is made, it is state-sanctioned murder, and it is costly.

I prefer life without parole... let a 16 year old kid think about being in prison for 70 or 80 years....


15 posted on 03/02/2005 10:59:10 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe (http://www.drunkenbuffoonery.com/mboards/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

You will have trouble finding ANY Rebublicans with balls.
First we were told that they couldn't do anything without a majority in the House.
After they had a majority in the House, we were told that without a majority in the Senate, nothing could be done.
After they had a majority in both House and Senate, that nothing could be done without a Republican in the White House.
After they had a majority in both houses AND a Republican president, nothing could be done without a BIGGER majority.
Now they have that and THEY STILL CAN'T GET A FRICKING THING ACCOMPLISHED!!!
I believe that if the entire House and all of the Senate with the exception of Drunken Ted were Republicans, the Republicans still would not have enough balls to start a girls softball game.


16 posted on 03/02/2005 11:39:45 AM PST by newcthem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Rush spent some time on this issue today - he said that the APA (American Psychological Assn) states that girls 14 to 18 are smart enough to have an abortion - but boys under 18 are not smart enough to make the right decision about killing someone ..??

The APA is the one with the psychological problem.


17 posted on 03/02/2005 11:46:36 AM PST by CyberAnt (Pres. Bush: "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
I oppose the death penalty because it cannot be corrected if a mistake is made

Fortunately, with genetic testing mistakes are now nearly impossible.

it is state-sanctioned murder

It's state sanctioned execution. There's a difference.

and it is costly.

How costly is it to put a plastic bag over their heads?

18 posted on 03/02/2005 11:49:06 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Didn't at lest one of these judges say that he voted against executing juveniles because Europe was against it?
19 posted on 03/02/2005 11:51:11 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

The nuclear option was when they decided to fillibuster judicial nominees.


20 posted on 03/02/2005 11:51:36 AM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson