Wednesday, June 25, 2008

There They Go Again!

The liberals on the Supreme Court rule that the rape and torture of an 8-year-old girl is not a severe enough crime for the citizens of Louisiana to impose the death penalty on the rapist, her stepfather.

For it or against it, it should be the business of the people of Louisiana to decide.

Rape used to be a capital offense in many states. Not anymore. Funny how so many more are committed now. Or rather, not so funny.

UPDATE: "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."

19 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 25, 2008 at 10:12 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Leave it to LibDave to blindly side with the Libs on the SC and child rapists.

the penalty would remove the incentive for the rapist not to kill his victim.

Also, no one's been executed for several decades for a non-murder crime (even in those states with death-penalty for rape laws and convicts on death row).

Another mitigating factor is the child's welfare. ...for a child to realized that his testifying could result in the death of someone, can be another major trauma to the child


None of these are good reason not to kill a pervert. We should not start making laws based on such weepy Lib BS.

June 26, 2008 at 12:35 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Besides, here it the point of the whole thing and why the Lib SC overstepped once again:

For it or against it, it should be the business of the people of Louisiana to decide.


Protecting perverts and ignoring the will of the People… This is what we can expect more of if Lib Obama becomes our next president and gets to make the coming Supreme Court appointments. This is what this presidential election is all about.
Everyone should think long and hard before going into the voting booth this November.

June 26, 2008 at 12:39 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Diano,

The incentive to kill argument is a political argument (and one with some merit), it is NOT a legal or a constitutional argument.

Once again, the court has exceeded its authority and imposed its will on The People, in this case the people of Louisiana, instead of applying the law as written in the Constitution.

You don't mind because it is a decision you agree with.

But if an activist conservative court decided that abortion violated a fetus' right to live, liberty and pursuit of happiness, liberals would be furious and rightly so. Such matters should be left to the voters to decide.

Unless, a majority violates the constitutional rights of a minority (not the invented or imagined rights, but the real, easily discernable ones) judges should butt out and let democracy work.

June 26, 2008 at 8:09 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

If we can’t even trust the highest Libs in the land to abide by the rules and do their duties with honor and integrity without abusing their power what Libs can we trust?

Turns out that even Dave’s black god Obama is opposed to this ruling. So Dave is even out of touch with him.

The good thing to come out of the SC ruling is that they upheld the death penalty for treason, espionage and terrorism. This should have Hate America First Libs shaking in their traitorous, enemy aiding sandles.

June 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Geez, Dave, you almost sound reasonable on this. And you didn’t even call anyone a “Nazi”. You remember to take your meds today or something?

Hey, what did you think of the death penalty for treason ruling? Essentially enforcing patriotism under the threat of death. That’s gotta make you lose some sleep at night, eh?

June 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Diano,

Your reasons and arguments for opposing the death penalty are fine (even if I find the unpersuasive).

My point - which you seem to continue to miss or evade - is that we live in a democratic republic, that allows the people, through their elected representatives, to make the laws and establishd punishments for breaking them.

Absent an egregious violation of the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment - say the cutting off of a hand for shoplifting - the Supreme Court should butt out and let state legislatures decide these things.

As I said, you wouldn't like it if the court summarily ruled that abortion violated the 8th or 14th Amendment.

Death penalty oponents should have to persuade the public why the capital punishment is wrong and should be banned. Not just a few judges who share their particular moral sensibilities.

June 26, 2008 at 1:40 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 26, 2008 at 2:01 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

However, if someone leaks battle plans or satellite tech that levels the playing field to prevent the US engaging in precipitous actions (unjustified war based on lies/faulty intelligence), that probably wouldn't qualify. While some would considering embarrassing the US with classified information to be treasonous (and it might be), that doesn't mean it rises to the level of death penalty.

"Level the playing field" against the U.S.?? Like we're the bad guys? Wow. You really are full blown traitor, huh? White Guilt, Straight Guilt, U.S. Guilt.... You're just full of guilt. You really should speak to a therapist about all that assumed guilt you've got, DD. It makes you talk crazy.

blahblahblahweepweepraceweep... The burden is on the death penalty proponents to PROVE that the death penalty is the only solution and that society would be greatly harmed without it. That's like guilty until proven innocent

Umm, exactly no. See, the death penalty is already legal and has stood as constitutional. So any challenge to it puts the burden on the challenger, the oponents.

June 26, 2008 at 5:17 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 26, 2008 at 10:30 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Diano,

For what it's worth, your
"Constitutional scholar" candidate Barack Obama appears to agree with yours truly.

The Associated Press reports that Barack Obama "said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment":

Obama: "I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes... I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Either he is lying, so as not to appear soft on child rapists, or he actually gets it. You don't.

As for your assertion: "Individual states and communities are not particularly qualified to make such judgments against the broader canvass..."

And what makes 5 of 9 individual human beings "particularly qualified" to decide to declare a law that is supported by a majority of the residents in a particular state?

You need to better explain your broader canvass argument and why 5 Supreme Courts justices are necessarily better, (more qualified) painters than millions of voters.

June 26, 2008 at 11:12 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 27, 2008 at 3:23 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Last time I checked, we don't elect the Supreme Court Justices, so why is this crew legislating fomr the bench? Strict interpretation of our Constitution ONLY folks, that's the only document they need to do their jobs.

June 27, 2008 at 8:36 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Traitor Dave wept: blahblahblah Bush shouldn’t have started the war…

Turning traitor against one’s own country is not an acceptable way to show displeasure with a war you don’t like, DD.
But you Libs have been struggling with this for so time now …because Bush hurt your feelings.

We need to get back to some cruel and unusual punishment when dealing with cruel and unusual criminals.

June 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

You all are missing the picture here. Remember the man who shot the "scumbag" who molested his son? He shot the creep point blank in the head at the airport.

That's how I would handle anyone messing with my family. To hell with the Supreme Court.

Cheers

June 29, 2008 at 8:02 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Sure. And then dare a jury to convict you.
Were I on such a jury I would fairly and impartially vote to aquit someone for taking justice into their own hands and ignoring this Lib SC misplaced sympathies in the extreme ruling.

June 29, 2008 at 1:23 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home