Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

yitwail wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
So,if a teenager commits a murder at 6:59:58,and they were born at 7:00:00,then since the murder was committed 2 seconds before their 18th birthday they avoid the death penalty?

I know that sounds ridiculous,but anyone wanna bet that some lawyer somewhere will parse it like that,before to long.

Sounds a fair summary of the law to me.

i would call it "erring on the side of life"

I still call it a fair summary of the law. The United States, courtesy of the Supreme Court, is now one of those nations that don't put juveniles to death. Welcome.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

I do indeed agree that Children and adults are not similarly situated in society. I would never hold any other position. I am, however, having difficulty understanding why a 17 and a half year old murderer is to be exempt from the gas chamber( for the record, I am against the death penalty for all) because his moral sense is not yet formed, while a fourteen year old girl has enough moral sense to choose an abortion without any kind of counseling.

for one thing, you're assuming that children develop emotionally & intellectually at the same rate. anecdotal evidence claims the exact opposite. also, girls are generally regarded as maturing faster than boys, although probably not by 3 1/2 years. but more important, you're comparing apples & oranges; 14 year old girls are generally not mature enough for parenthood, or to make decisions about pregnancy. there may be exceptions, but generally it won't do either the girl, her family, or society any good to have a baby when she hasn't even started highschool, so an abortion is in everybody's best interest. granted, it's not in the best interest of the unborn child, but if that's the real issue, just pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. if anything, abortions are more justified for 14 year old girls than for mature women.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I still call it a fair summary of the law. The United States, courtesy of the Supreme Court, is now one of those nations that don't put juveniles to death. Welcome.

and i agree with that. i was just trying to hoist some conservatives with their own petard; why intervene *on the side of life* when it's a woman who's possibly not in a persistent vegetative state, but on the side of execution for a juvenile who's possibly mature enough to make prudent decisions about committing capital crimes?

0 Replies

Yes I took your point. And on their petards they are being hoisted and I must say it really is sport (except they have very sour looks on their faces) but I suppose so would I if I were, metaphorically speaking, being blown up Very Happy

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Yeah. You're "misunderestimating" the level of understanding of both myself and Blatham on this topic.

BTW, does it strike anyone as odd that persons calling themselves Christians are furious that the U.S. Supreme Court found executing juveniles unconstitutional?

Does anyone find even odder that such individuals describe themselves, straight-faced, as adherents of the "culture of life"?

Are you surprised to learn that people called conservatives would quote Joseph Stalin? Yes, that Joseph Stalin, the former Soviet dictator and mass murderer.

A wake-up call for the Sane Majority

Here's a little something that comes up when one googles Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration:

Quote:

0 Replies

That's fascinating. I feel as if I'm watching the longest socio-political train wreck in history and it's happening in slow motion.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Yes I took your point. And on their petards they are being hoisted and I must say it really is sport (except they have very sour looks on their faces) but I suppose so would I if I were, metaphorically speaking, being blown up

that would be refreshing, but conservatives are a resilient bunch these days. they're like teflon timexes. [for young people reading this, timex watches once had a great slogan: it takes a licking and keeps on ticking] they have an upper hand on moderates because they don't let common sense get in the way of ideology.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Yes I took your point. And on their petards they are being hoisted and I must say it really is sport (except they have very sour looks on their faces) but I suppose so would I if I were, metaphorically speaking, being blown up

that would be refreshing, but conservatives are a resilient bunch these days. they're like teflon timexes. [for young people reading this, timex watches once had a great slogan: it takes a licking and keeps on ticking] they have an upper hand on moderates because they don't let common sense get in the way of ideology.

But surely moderates - by definition- don't let ideology grip them? Adhering to certain universally accepted principles such as human rights, isn't a bad thing?

And conservatives - well they do have an ideology and they stick to it, it's when they lose touch with reality that they become reactionaries. It's almost a sort of voluntary metamorphosis - the grub becomes a moth at will.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

But surely moderates - by definition- don't let ideology grip them? Adhering to certain universally accepted principles such as human rights, isn't a bad thing?

keep up that sort of thing, we'll be basing supreme court decisions on foreign opinions, there'll be a new world order, chinese troops will be invading texas, and everyone who owns a gun will be placed in concentration camps. [that's a tongue-in-cheek remark, folks.]

0 Replies

And here's the program for the conference entitled:

Confronting the Judicial War on Faith sponsored by the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration.

http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/schedule.asp

0 Replies

A train wreck, yes. An apt analogy

0 Replies

Rhetorical question: why the hell is everything these days couched in terms of "war"? See what Bush has started? The US is sliding into a martial state. Damn that angers me.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Rhetorical question: why the hell is everything these days couched in terms of "war"? See what Bush has started? The US is sliding into a martial state. Damn that angers me.

me too. Up to now it's been all stealth attack on the part of the radical right. Finally some of it is coming out into the open.

0 Replies

Well, LBJ started it all with his ill-named and ineffective "war on poverty".

I agree it is, at best ,a hacnneyed usage.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well, LBJ started it all with his ill-named and ineffective "war on poverty".

true, but Nixon's war on cancer, Reagan's war on drugs, and Bush's war on terror haven't been unqualified successes.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Rhetorical question: why the hell is everything these days couched in terms of "war"? See what Bush has started? The US is sliding into a martial state. Damn that angers me.

I think it's Hollywood movies messing with public perception, this time to the advantage of conservatives. You see, when you work in the military, you quickly realize that for the most part it is just another self-referential, bureaucratic government agency. Insofar the "war on X" metaphor lacks content: you have things done by a self-referential bureaucracy in reality, as you do in the metaphor. But thanks to films like "Top gun" and "Rambo", the public image of war and the military is quite different. It's about a charismatic, possibly maverick hero who takes on the enemy head-on, and quickly defeats him. The End. Whether X be poverty, drugs, or terrorism, you never have to talk about the uncomfortable reality that X is here to stay, will never be conclusively defeated, and is subject to tradeoffs just like any other government policy. And as a fringe benefit, you get to label your opponents as unpatriotic, treasonous backstabbers.

If you were a politician, you would love war too, and especially the metaphors that come with it.

0 Replies

There for a second you had me thinkin' I'd like to be a politician, thomas!

"You had me at "war."

0 Replies

High Court Justices Seek Security Boost

Quote:

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Two Supreme Court justices urged Congress on Tuesday to provide more money to boost security at their building, saying recent attacks on federal judges underscore the need.

0 Replies

For anyone who may need or want a quick reference.
http://tomdelay.house.gov/constitution/default.asp#topofpage

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Well, LBJ started it all with his ill-named and ineffective "war on poverty".

true, but Nixon's war on cancer, Reagan's war on drugs, and Bush's war on terror haven't been unqualified successes.

And the war on poverty has also been an abject failure.
There are just as many poor people (percentage wise) as there was when LBJ started his "war".

0 Replies

Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know