Juror speaks out as Conn. family's killer gets death penalty

It’s not so much rogue judges as it is a process problem. Call it “male answer syndrome”, if you like.

An attorney loses a case, so he thinks, “Why not appeal this to a federal judge?” The judge looks at the appeal, and automatically tries to figure out if there is some, any, federal justification (or rationalization), he could use to hear the case. Over time, just about everything gets federalized. It goes from the lowest federal judge all the way to the SCOTUS.

A great example is the infamous Alaska case of “Bong Hits For Jesus!”, which has made it all the way through the federal courts, to get to the SCOTUS—Twice! Come on! There is no way this should have happened. It should have never left Alaska.

But the origins of the idea of a Second Court of the United States have in its purpose taking care of several major constitutional problems that the US has right now, all at once.

First of all, the constitution was created to be a system of balances. Everyone knows of the balance between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. But there are a bunch more.

One of these was the balance between the federal government, the State governments, and the people. The States had an important check on the federal government, because they appointed their senators. But this was taken away from them by the 17th Amendment.

This meant that, while the federal government could protect the people from abusive States with the 14th Amendment, the States were defenseless to protect themselves and the people from an abusive federal government.

This is why the Second Court of the United States looks a lot like the senate. Because in effect, it restores much of this balance. Judges are very specifically *appointed* to the court by State legislatures, *not* by popular vote. They work on behalf of their State’s legislature.

Another purpose to the Second Court of the United States goes even deeper. All the way to the argument of federalism and anti-federalism.

The SCOTUS has decided that acts of congress supersede acts of State legislatures, *and* that the decisions of federal judges are superior to those of State judges. However, they have *never* found that the president is superior to State governors.

And this means that several times, when the two argue, the president has relied on force of arms to enforce his will. The latest example being the integration of Little Rock high school.

But when an entire State decides it rejects the presidential will, they have in past voted to “nullify” a federal law. This has never been resolved once and for all by the courts, but a Second Court of the United States would make routine nullification common.

Yet another purpose to the court would be to handle lawsuits between the federal government and a State or States. Right now it must go through a ponderous process taking years. Instead, this could be an original jurisdiction for the court.

For example, the AZ anti illegal alien law. The Justice Department has sued Arizona. The case must go through the federal State District Court, to a panel of the 9th Circuit, to the full 9th Circuit, all before it gets to the SCOTUS, which is the only court that can really decide it. Waste of time and millions of dollars.

Importantly, the last and best purpose of the Second Court of the United States is the ability of the States to sue the federal government. They could then challenge every unfunded mandate, intrastate interference, federal drug and gun laws, etc., much faster and at a fraction of the cost.

“Seems like I heard on the radio news that nobody has been fried there in 50 years.”

You would be wrong about that.

A serial killer of young women was executed in CT a few years’ ago (Gov. Jodi Rell signed the death warrant, if I’m not mistaken).

Having said that, there was something out-of-kilter in the Hayes trial, particularly the penalty phase.

Why did it take so long for jurors to decide what was [more than] painfully obvious from the very beginning?

This verdict should have been rendered within a couple of hours — not the days of deliberation that it took.

The real implication here is that society itself (as represented by jurors who are unable to make up their minds in the face of moral certainty) is losing its grip. On morality, judgement.... everything.

Thank God for Texans, who intrinsically understand what the solutions are for problems like Mr. Hayes!

“Seems like I heard on the radio news that nobody has been fried there in 50 years.”

You would be wrong about that.

A serial killer of young women was executed in CT a few years’ ago (Gov. Jodi Rell signed the death warrant, if I’m not mistaken).

Having said that, there was something out-of-kilter in the Hayes trial, particularly the penalty phase.

Why did it take so long for jurors to decide what was [more than] painfully obvious from the very beginning?

This verdict should have been rendered within a couple of hours — not the days of deliberation that it took.

Thank God for Texans, who intrinsically understand what the solutions are for problems like Mr. Hayes!

OK, I stand corrected.

However, I believe I used the grisly term “fried” for the form of execution, meaning the electric chair.

Michael Ross was, in fact, put to death by lethal injection in 2005. He was the one and only criminal executed in Conn.(so far) since SCOTUS gave a green light for capital punishment in 1976.

The “fried” part was actually quite accurate. Joseph Taborsky, one half of the “Mad Dog Killers” duo (with Arthur Colombe), was executed in the Conn. electric chair in 1960 for a series of brutal murders he committed during the 1950’s.

I think that what happened is that I heard an on-air discussion about how Hayes should be handled and one speaker said something to the effect that Conn. hadn’t ELECTROCUTED anyone in 50 years, which left the impression that The Chair is still the method used in Conn. The speakers seemed to be suggesting that only frying in Ol’ Sparky was grisly enough for an animal like Hayes. And, to be fair, a lethal injection seems pretty kind for the likes of him.

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.