RSS
A SCOTUS Screw Up
The New York Times discovers a factual flaw in the Supreme Court's reasoning on the death-penalty for child rape opinion... thanks to a blogger.
It turns out that since 2006 under military law a child rapist CAN get the death penalty. Whoops!
Justice Kennedy hung the majority's opinion on the "evolving standards of decency" assertion. It seems more constituencies, not less, are supporting the death penalty for a heinous crime. Maybe the standard of decency is evolving toward the death penalty instead of away from it.
Or maybe that argument was completely bogus in the first place, allowing "progressive" judges to undemocratically impose their personal moral beliefs on an entire country.
It turns out that since 2006 under military law a child rapist CAN get the death penalty. Whoops!
Justice Kennedy hung the majority's opinion on the "evolving standards of decency" assertion. It seems more constituencies, not less, are supporting the death penalty for a heinous crime. Maybe the standard of decency is evolving toward the death penalty instead of away from it.
Or maybe that argument was completely bogus in the first place, allowing "progressive" judges to undemocratically impose their personal moral beliefs on an entire country.
posted by Spencerblog at
9:23 AM
14 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justice Kennedy hung the majority's opinion on the "evolving standards of decency" assertion. It seems more constituencies, not less, are supporting the death penalty for a heinous crime. Maybe the standard of decency is evolving toward the death penalty instead of away from it.
It absolutely is. Contrary to the undue exposure the small but vocal minority who oppose the death penalty recieve from their buddies in the Lib Media, We The People want to EXPAND the death penalty, not scale it back.
Or maybe that argument was completely bogus in the first place, allowing "progressive" judges to undemocratically impose their personal moral beliefs on an entire country.
Absolutely. But we’re only going to see more of this abusive overreaching Lib legislating from the bench if we elect a radical Lib like Obama who will get to push that court even farther to the Radical Left with the coming justice appointments.
Think before you vote, people.
Sounds like young David has a pretty low opinion of America's military.
However, to most Americans it surveys as the most popular and admired institution in the U.S.
Dumb Americans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just say you hate the American Military, Dave, and be done with it. There's really no hiding it. And you are a Lib after all...
I don't know the basis for Diano's distrust of military justice over our civilian court system. After all, our civilian courts' mistakes are legion and legendary.
In any case, it wasn't the military that established the Code of Military Justice, it was Congress.
As noted by the Washington Post:
"... two years ago, Congress enacted a death penalty for soldiers who commit child rape, as part of an update to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Irony of ironies: The (Supreme) court has cast doubt on the constitutionality of an act of Congress based on the erroneous claim that the statute did not exist."
The Washington Post is against the death penalty for people who rape and torture children, as it said in its editorial.
Fair enough.
But to assert that such a penalty is "unconstitutional" on the kind of flimsy reasoning and false facts employed by the Supreme Court's majority damages the court's credibility
It’s not that Dishonest Dave distrusts the military justice system, it’s just that he sees it as equaling Bush. And we know how he’ll blindly oppose anything he sees as even remotely related to Bush.
Also, Libs like him who are soft on justice and punishment for criminals, and as well our terrorist enemies, they want these trials moved to civilian courts because they are much more likely to be lienient as the public jury pool has been influenced by Lib propaganda via the Lying Lib Media. And any terrorist win in court the Daves see as a loss for Bush.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Now you're just making stuff up, ya liar, DDD. Don't be posting slander like that about our President when you have nothing to back such claims.
And just how exactly is the Military "wrong" about Don't Ask/ Don't Tell??
Oh, that's right, they're not. It's just that you don't like it. Well, that don't make it wrong. That prolly makes it more right! Lol...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I knew as soon as I read about that gay advocate Lib “study” (notice that they were all Dems, hand picked by the gay advocate Lib group) that you’d be bringing it here today in a feeble attempt to blahblahblahweepweep. I knew it. The study means nothing and the Pentagon stands by DADT. It is reasonable and fair and was in fact designed to protect gays that want to serve. Also, straights are subject to DADT also. So it is fairly applied. DADT stays. End of non-issue.
The loss of gay translators having cost lives is a lie, DDD. I notice you didn’t provide and proof to support this gay apologist lie. And don’t bother bringing some Lying Lib “study” like that other one. That’s not “proof” of anything other than the lengths to which gay apologists will distort things for their agenda.
Why must gays always broadcast to everyone their sexuality anyway? I’d like to see heteros who did the same crap dismissed also. Keep that stuff in the bedroom where it belongs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Even still, like so many other non-objective Lying Lib studies, this one started with hand picked participants and had a preconceived agenda and then set about reaching that conclusion. And they did just that. That’s certainly no “study” worthy of changing policy based on. The guy is a gay activist, for crissake. Not very objective this Lib:
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Sure, you’re always weeping about unfairness. Well, DADT is applied fairly to everyone. No one is supposed to ask or tell. And sure, straights can get fired for expressing their sexuality in the workplace. Sure. We should expand DADT to include all public office, not just the Military.
And you’re still avoiding the question as to why gays always want everyone to know about their perversion.
The people we should be asking about DADT are the soldiers who have to bunk with gays.
And where’s my proof that losing a couple of gay translators has “cost lives”, Lying Dave?
The blind gay apologist in you is really grasping on this one, DDD. You’re looking like an emotional lying fool.
Oops, forgot…
you wouldn't dismiss a soldier that wanted to leave Iraq
Right. Since when do soldiers –or just about anyone else for that matter- get to pick and choose their job assignments? And we used to shoot deserters.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home