Reply
Thu 26 Jun, 2008 05:36 am
I sure hope they don't get the Heller case wrong. The libtard members sure screwed up the execution for raping a child issue.
All child molesters should be executed. Period.
Thats why youre not a judge, you dont think things out.
ALthough I do agree that the DC gun ban will be overturned because case law has separated the "well regulated militia" issue to include personal carry. Theres precedent and some logic.
However, Im pissed at how all you gun freaks can stretch the constitution to include some non-valid issues like multiple gun purchase, or big load clips, or non reporting of missing guns. ALl these items are not even considered in 2A, yet you and your bud DAvid try to make the arguments that 2A DOES include such items by te "Shall not be infringed " phrase. Thats reeediculous.
Im waiting for a more ballsy Congress to precipitate some laws that will hallenge the gun lobby NRA douche bags. That way the USSC will be presented some evolutionary test cases for judicial review and our civilization will move on. I predict that some inroads will be made in a slow but styeady fashion and it may take a hundred years but it will come.
So, f-up is really Ray Schoenke. Who knew?
Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.
The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.
Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.
"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."
The decision resonated in the presidential campaign, too, where Democrat Barack Obama objected to it. Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.
Re: USSC Out of Touch?
The death penalty ruling surprised me. You can only issue a death penalty if a murder was involved? What about if ten children were molested and almost killed? What about attempted murder where the victim survived despite the best efforts of the would be killer? What about an embezzler who ruins the financial health of a few thousand families? I suppose the SC was looking to define a clear line.
PUNITIVE RESPINSES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY MEASURED. In other words , The Punishment must fit the crime. While you may disagree, its the law dickhead.
What would you do if someone raped your child?
If the government won't execute him/her, I bet you would. I would.
cjhsa wrote:Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.
The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.
Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.
"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."
The decision resonated in the presidential campaign, too, where Democrat Barack Obama objected to it. Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.
I find this a interesting subject since the Court agreed to hear the case in the first place.
I am all for States Rights, yet if a State creates a law that violates the US Constitution, the SC has the right to overturn that law. In the case of Death for Rape, the Court ruled the penalty did not fit the crime. That is an opinion, not a fact. The State now has to come up with a different penalty.
What about dragging? Public stoning? Bring back the whip?
cjhsa wrote:What about dragging? Public stoning? Bring back the whip?
How about life without possibility of parole.
I think we have enough problems with the death penalty in this country right now. Expanding it to include crimes other than murder will most likely exacerbate those problems.
It's another states right revoked by the Federal Gov't. I think that's the biggest issue I have with it.
There are lots of sides to this issue.
Victims groups were actually on the rapist's side in this one; asking a kid to testify against someone who might then be killed is pretty hideous.
McGentrix wrote:It's another states right revoked by the Federal Gov't. I think that's the biggest issue I have with it.
Yes, it is exactly as you describe. Yet, the USSC does have the authority to overturn State Law if, in their opinion, it violates the US Constitution.
Extreme examples, but what if a State had a penalty of death for simple Bank Robbery? A State enacts Slavery Laws?
Some say the Court should not have even heard the case. I disagree with that.
So to me, it is their opinion that is open to debate.
Dem pledges: I'll 'rip apart' child-rape victims on stand
June 25, 2008
Massachusetts politician and defense attorney Rep. James Fagan is under intense public scrutiny after he promised to "rip apart" child victims of rape who testify if the state imposes strict sentences for sex offenders.
Fagan, a Democrat, made his controversial remarks on the state House floor, Fox News reported.
"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of child victims. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."
As a defense attorney, Fagan said he would prevent accused child sex offenders from experiencing a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."
According to the report, his statements angered both colleagues and activists.
"I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary," said Bradley Jones, Massachusetts House minority leader. "I appreciate that he's a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary. It was excessive."
Mark Lunsford, a Florida father who lost his 9-year-old daughter after she was kidnapped, wrapped in a trash bag and buried alive by a sex offender in 2005, said he was shocked by Fagan's remarks. He told the Boston Herald that Fagan should have more respect for the rights of sexually abused children.
"Why doesn't he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica's Law?" Lunsford asked. "These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?"
I'm always dismayed by those indivuduals who regard the constitution as sacred, yet get all up in the grill of the judicial body whose responsibility it is to defend it, claiming that the wills of the individual state somehow trump the wills of that judicial body.
Bizarre.
Once you've broken the law and been convicted of the crime, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you any longer. You cannot vote. You cannot own a firearm. You cannot do a lot of things a non-felon can do.
cjhsa wrote:Once you've broken the law and been convicted of the crime, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you any longer.
I guess once we pass the law outlawing guns that means cjhsa will have no recourse since the constitution no longer protects him.
parados wrote:cjhsa wrote:Once you've broken the law and been convicted of the crime, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you any longer.
I guess once we pass the law outlawing guns that means cjhsa will have no recourse since the constitution no longer protects him.
To do that you have to change the Constitution, which will cause a civil war.
cjhsa wrote:parados wrote:cjhsa wrote:Once you've broken the law and been convicted of the crime, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you any longer.
I guess once we pass the law outlawing guns that means cjhsa will have no recourse since the constitution no longer protects him.
To do that you have to change the Constitution, which will cause a civil war.
No, we don't have to change the constitution because once the law is passed you are no longer protected by the constitution (using your idiotic statement.)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace