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

Skip to comments.

Alito's First Ruling Isn't Encouraging (Soutered again?)
Sierra Times ^ | 2/3/2006 | Lee R. Shelton IV

Posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by FerdieMurphy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-216 next last
To: NapkinUser
He voted to allow a STAY of execution to continue until it expires. When it does, Alito will let the execution go through.

I don't think that's what's going on.

I believe Taylor's (cruel and unusual based) appeal is at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which will hear arguments.

If they grant or deny the appeal, Missouri or Taylor gets to appeal and the hysterical folks just might get what they want--an 8th Amendment case where Alito gets to please or horrify us with an actual vote and opinion on the matter.

Two other similar cases are in Florida, both of which were stayed by the SC.

Of course, I could be wrong.

121 posted on 02/03/2006 2:44:08 PM PST by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

I have it from a very good source that Alito is a lot more liberal than people realize. There will be a lot of very surprised people.


122 posted on 02/03/2006 2:55:01 PM PST by Krankor (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

Oh, it's not "angry rhetoric". I have confidence in Alito. MikeinIraq stalks me so I like to raise his blood pressure. But this "courtesy" thing, if so, is ludicrous, and runs counter to the claims by Alito and his backers (including me) that he will rule based on the Constitution. "Being courteous" is not part of Constitutional law.


123 posted on 02/03/2006 3:02:26 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: bad company; All
Gee. I guess this hasn't been trolled to death already.

Retread troll denied stay of execution

124 posted on 02/03/2006 3:07:30 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Debunked cr@p


125 posted on 02/03/2006 3:19:03 PM PST by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton

LOL, that's spot on!


126 posted on 02/03/2006 3:46:30 PM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
You apparently haven't heard about the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment that requires that federal protections also apply to the states.

I have indeed heard of that worthless, baseless clause. A clause that was not 'found' until 1897, thirty years after the passage of the 14th Amendment. A clause that only applies to the Amendments where this mysterious clause has been applied. A clause that must be overturned if there is a hope to return to a Constitutional Republic

Lincoln even tried to justify the war by claiming that it wasn't the states that gave rise to the Union but that the Union gave rise to the States..

Yes and a famous 20th century leader (non-US) fully agreed with him. Care to guess which tyrant did?

127 posted on 02/03/2006 3:53:19 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Until you either repeal the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment or get the Supreme Court to reinterpret it, your original complaint is baseless. Under the current interpretation, the case in question is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To pretend otherwise is to simply ignore the reality of the situation.


128 posted on 02/03/2006 4:00:52 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: All

What...utter.....

Here's my recommendation.

There are two roads you can take.

Wily Coyote off the cliff, or sanity.

First road meets Souter, second meets a solid Justice who is what he presented himself to be. Justic Alito that will respect the Constitution, rather than follow the path of the activists.

Why I'm on the thread, I don't know. 'Cause I'm not going to spend years reassuring some folks that evidently don't trust their own prior judgements about Alito because he dares to do as he said he would do.

Unbelieveable.


129 posted on 02/03/2006 4:20:00 PM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Under the current interpretation, the case in question is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To pretend otherwise is to simply ignore the reality of the situation.

And to continue nominating judges that see the 14th Amendment as untouchable is to pretend at conservatism and falsely claiming an 'originalist' view. There were judges available and on the short list that, and some may have, agreed fully with this sentiment. And who did Bush pick? A big government hack that will agree with Republican principle. Not a conservative

130 posted on 02/03/2006 4:30:43 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
do you know exactly was argued and held here in this case? do you KNOW what alito voted ON?

Nothing was "held"-- there was no written opinion. It's not at all clear that the Supreme Court will even hear the case. What happened is that the inmate appealed to the 8th Circuit. The 8th Circuit granted a stay of execution so it could hear the case. Only after the 8th Circuit decides the case will the Supreme Court have the chance to decide to hear the case or not.

After the 8th Circuit granted a stay of execution, the State prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to reverse the 8th Circuit's stay of execution. The Supreme Court technically has the power to do that, but doesn't do it very often, because, by definition, they haven't heard the merits of the case yet and may never hear them.

The Court voted 6-3 to deny the prosecutor's motion to overturn the stay; Alito voted with the majority, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissented. No one wrote any opinions.

131 posted on 02/03/2006 4:40:57 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

i know that. it was a rhetorical question to those going off halfcocked on this, when the jumping to a SOUTER conclusion has been debunked, REPEATEDLY.


132 posted on 02/03/2006 4:45:04 PM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
Mike, you always seem to make a greater fool out of yourself with every post.

I don't think you are in any position to be calling someone a fool.

133 posted on 02/03/2006 4:48:10 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
But the pledge to provide a free vote to review death-penalty cases as a matter of courtesy, regardless of his own judgment, is terrible.

It's also been standard procedure of the Supreme Court for decades.

Breathe.
134 posted on 02/03/2006 5:04:57 PM PST by Terpfen (72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Relax, everyone, it's only one ruling.


135 posted on 02/03/2006 5:44:21 PM PST by Clintonfatigued (John Paul Stevens for retirement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

I do not think YET anyway that Alito will be a Souter II. I expect the next appointee to be Souter II!!!!! Still pessimistic with cause, awaiting Alberto Gonzalez, whose name translates to "David Souter."


136 posted on 02/03/2006 9:54:34 PM PST by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

If you're right, fine.

But there is nothing wrong with vigilance to the point of anxiety. I have to make up for all the complacency on our side. When you win one, it's natural to think you've won more than you have.


137 posted on 02/03/2006 9:58:43 PM PST by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.


Nonsense, TR.

The democrats would have to first win a senate majority before they could even try to force another Souter type on this president.


138 posted on 02/03/2006 9:59:39 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
...refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Gosh, all YOU'VE done is prove you're too dense to find out the FACTS.

You got suckered!

139 posted on 02/03/2006 10:04:12 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Alito voted with the left-wing, pinko, commie "justices."

FOOL!


140 posted on 02/03/2006 10:11:04 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-216 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