Justice Kennedy Has Officially Converted!

[Kade]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape

Unbelievable. Another 5-4 decision that has gone the way of liberty.

I thought the bench was permanently insane. The asinine "5", or the conservative wing of the bench has always included Justice Kennedy... who, after today's decision, looks to have converted completely back to sanity. This is the fifth or sixth time that Kennedy has no sided in the corner of reason.

That's now at least 3 of the "liberal" judges who were appointed by Conservative presidents, and who have now switched from being "conservative" upon realizing, finally, that they don't really have to answer to anyone.

This is what it means to be "liberal". To have some common sense, and to understand the rule of law, as Justice Breyer says...

I'll post the decision as soon as it is available.

Rejoice, we may yet make it out of the darkness.

And, as the article is extremely biased, they now refer to Kennedy openly as a "liberal", which if anyone of you follow as closely as I do, SCOTUS, know that Kennedy was never considered part of the left wing of the bench....

This is rather remarkable, and shows a general trend of all judges to eventually see the light of reason... (although I don't think Scalia, Alito, or Roberts will ever come to this point)

[asgardshill]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape

Unbelievable. Another 5-4 decision that has gone the way of liberty.

Yeah. The liberty to boink babies with no fear of getting the needle for doing so. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between liberty and license. And this bad and wrong decision crossed it.

[Kade]

Yeah. The liberty to boink babies with no fear of getting the needle for doing so. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between liberty and license. And this bad and wrong decision crossed it.

Are you an idiot? Because I could have swore you cared about the Constitution... I guess in the end, we are all partisan.

I leave emotion out of this decision... as it was obvious that Alito, in his dissent, did not...

I see nothing Constitutional about his opinion that:

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave."

[Kade]

I'm more excited in general about Kennedy's conversion, than anything.

But if you want an emotional argument and philosophical argument about this decision, let's dance.

If the death penalty is open for child rapist, what is the motivation for a child rapist to not kill a child he/she rapes?

[acroso]

I'm more excited in general about Kennedy's conversion, than anything.

But if you want an emotional argument and philosophical argument about this decision, let's dance.

If the death penalty is open for child rapist, what is the motivation for a child rapist to not kill a child he/she rapes?

And what does that have to do with the constitution...nothing.

Justices should not be making their own opinions like lawmakers.

[asgardshill]

Are you an idiot?

No. Are you?


Because I could have swore you cared about the Constitution... I guess in the end, we are all partisan.

The Eighth Amendment reads:


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There's nothing "cruel" or "unusual" about giving child rapists the needle. There are fates much worse than death, and being sexually assaulted as a child is one of them.


I leave emotion out of this decision... as it was obvious that Alito, in his dissent, did not...

I see nothing Constitutional about his opinion that:

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave."

There was nothing Constitutional about the majority decision. And Alito was completely correct in his dissent.

[micahnelson]

If the death penalty is open for child rapist, what is the motivation for a child rapist to not kill a child he/she rapes?

A healthy respect for life....

... yeah.

[asgardshill]

I'm more excited in general about Kennedy's conversion, than anything.

But if you want an emotional argument and philosophical argument about this decision, let's dance.

If the death penalty is open for child rapist, what is the motivation for a child rapist to not kill a child he/she rapes?

As I noted, there are many MANY worse things than mere death. Child rape messes up if not destroys the victim for the rest of his or her natural life. Its the original "gift that keeps on giving."

A horrible decision and one that I hope is overcome with life in prison with no possibility of parole for child rapists. Let their fellow inmates administer the justice that SCOTUS wouldn't.

[pcosmar]

Yeah. The liberty to boink babies with no fear of getting the needle for doing so. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between liberty and license. And this bad and wrong decision crossed it.

This has nothing to do with "The liberty to boink babies ". It has to do with the Death Penalty, which is often abused.
I have no sympathy towards those that abuse children. But today spanking is considered by some to be abuse, and bare butt baby pictures are called pornography.
Let those that abuse be punished, but save the Death Penalty for a few very serious cases, when it is used at all.

[asgardshill]

This has nothing to do with "The liberty to boink babies ". It has to do with the Death Penalty, which is often abused.
I have no sympathy towards those that abuse children. But today spanking is considered by some to be abuse, and bare butt baby pictures are called pornography.
Let those that abuse be punished, but save the Death Penalty for a few very serious cases, when it is used at all.

Nobody's advocating giving the death penalty to online pornographers, parents who spank, or grandmas who take pictures of their grandbabies in the bathtub. But rape is probably the ultimate harm that can befall a child, and the death penalty for the perpetrator is eminently reasonable.

[Kade]

This has nothing to do with "The liberty to boink babies ". It has to do with the Death Penalty, which is often abused.
I have no sympathy towards those that abuse children. But today spanking is considered by some to be abuse, and bare butt baby pictures are called pornography.
Let those that abuse be punished, but save the Death Penalty for a few very serious cases, when it is used at all.

We disagree on many things, pcosmar, but today, we agree on this.

[acroso]

McCain's justices would certainly be better than Obama's, but I still think McCain would appoint more libs like Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.

His amnesty and nation building agenda is not worth a few crappy justices like Kennedy in the end cost-benefit analysis

[pcosmar]

Nobody's advocating giving the death penalty to online pornographers, parents who spank, or grandmas who take pictures of their grandbabies in the bathtub. But rape is probably the ultimate harm that can befall a child, and the death penalty for the perpetrator is eminently reasonable.

I am not opposed to punishing wrongdoing.
I am opposed to the over use of the Death penalty.
I am opposed to rabid prosecutors.

I have many good reasons, and have known some who have been abused by a corrupt system.

For a few examples,
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[asgardshill]

I am not opposed to punishing wrongdoing.
I am opposed to the over use of the Death penalty.
I am opposed to rabid prosecutors.

I have many good reasons, and have known some who have been abused by a corrupt system.

For a few examples,
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Yes, the Innocence Project has done and continues to do some marvelous work. But by the same token, there are diseases clad in human skin that prey on their fellow beings, and they should be punished, even unto death in some cases. Its simply my opinion that child rape should be one of those bright lines where you die if you get caught doing it.

No, in this case, Kennedy interpreted the Eighth Amendment very liberally, much too liberally for my comfort.

[Kade]

There was nothing Constitutional about the majority decision. And Alito was completely correct in his dissent.

What's your scholarly opinion about this... explain.

[ARealConservative]

I'm not a big believer in the death penalty, but when animals are sick, you put them down.

We need to accept that we aren't that far removed from the animal kingdom. I'm not going to shed a tear over a child rapist being put to death, even If personally don't agree.

I have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

[Acala]

Nowhere is the left vs right, liberal vs conservative notion more misleading than in the case of the Supreme Court. For example, let me point out that the recent case in which the Supreme Court upheld Federal power to interfere in state legalization of medical marijuana was carried by a mjaority of the so-called liberal justices that Kade-the-Obomba-fanboy so cherishes.

The only justice on the whole court that has expressed any real concern for the complete abandonment of Constitutional limits on Federal power is Thomas. The rest seem to be quite content with the Omnipotent State, only questioning Federal power around the edges and only when it runs contrary to some partisan interest.

With the exception of Thomas, if you present any of those asswipes with a direct question on the limits of Federal power, they will come up with pretty much none. Certainly none of them but Thomas feel that the Federal government is limited to the enumerated powers.

A pox on all their houses (except Thomas)

[asgardshill]

What's your scholarly opinion about this... explain.

It might not be scholarly, but my opinion is that there are some crimes where the perpetrator should be put to death when discovered. And child rape is one of them because of the incredible harm it does to the victim. And further, to celebrate this bad ruling as some sort of "victory" for liberty is wrong and wrong-headed in itself. The Founders never intended "liberty" to be synonymous with license and anarchy, and they certainly also knew that there are occasionally diseases clad in human skin that should not be allowed to walk amongst the rest of us.

This decision was no victory for liberty - well, except the liberty of child rapists to destroy innocent lives.

[Kade]

It might not be scholarly, but my opinion is that there are some crimes where the perpetrator should be put to death when discovered. And child rape is one of them because of the incredible harm it does to the victim. And further, to celebrate this bad ruling as some sort of "victory" for liberty is wrong and wrong-headed in itself. The Founders never intended "liberty" to be synonymous with license and anarchy, and they certainly also knew that there are occasionally diseases clad in human skin that should not be allowed to walk amongst the rest of us.

This decision was no victory for liberty - well, except the liberty of child rapists to destroy innocent lives.

How is that Constitutional?

[sparebulb]

Fortunately, the court got this one right.

There is no crime like child molestation where someone can be convicted with no real evidence whatsoever. Our society is really no different than the Roman days of bloodsports in the Colosseum. Along with fascism, executions are popular and appeal to the dumbed down masses.

[Kade]

Nowhere is the left vs right, liberal vs conservative notion more misleading than in the case of the Supreme Court. For example, let me point out that the recent case in which the Supreme Court upheld Federal power to interfere in state legalization of medical marijuana was carried by a mjaority of the so-called liberal justices that Kade-the-Obomba-fanboy so cherishes.

The only justice on the whole court that has expressed any real concern for the complete abandonment of Constitutional limits on Federal power is Thomas. The rest seem to be quite content with the Omnipotent State, only questioning Federal power around the edges and only when it runs contrary to some partisan interest.

With the exception of Thomas, if you present any of those asswipes with a direct question on the limits of Federal power, they will come up with pretty much none. Certainly none of them but Thomas feel that the Federal government is limited to the enumerated powers.

A pox on all their houses (except Thomas)

You notice I left Thomas out of my original post, on purpose.

You can stop insulting me in your responses, or we can go back and forth. I seriously doubt you have actually read any real opinions thoroughly, or have any idea what the Supreme Court is doing at any given time... Your boy Thomas voted with the dissent in Boumediene v Bush, you should not be invoking limitations of Federal powers as your personal mantra and protection of these conservative judges... the four conservatives have helped Bush become a powerful almost dictator like president.

[asgardshill]

How is that Constitutional?

How is it not? The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, not all punishment and not the death penalty.

Do you believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional on its face? For any crime?

[Kade]

How is it not? The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, not all punishment and not the death penalty.

Do you believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional on its face? For any crime?

What I believe in not being debated. Is rape the same as murder? Are they proportional? How far are we now going to extend capital punishment, the ability of the state to take human life, for non-murder? What is the limitation you are willing to set? Should we execute people for Grand Theft Auto next? If not, why not?

[micahnelson]

It might not be scholarly, but my opinion is that there are some crimes where the perpetrator should be put to death when discovered. And child rape is one of them because of the incredible harm it does to the victim. And further, to celebrate this bad ruling as some sort of "victory" for liberty is wrong and wrong-headed in itself. The Founders never intended "liberty" to be synonymous with license and anarchy, and they certainly also knew that there are occasionally diseases clad in human skin that should not be allowed to walk amongst the rest of us.

This decision was no victory for liberty - well, except the liberty of child rapists to destroy innocent lives.

I wouldn't say this gives child rapists liberty to rape- what it does is limits the right of a government to take a life when a life has not been taken. If we start to think abstractly about what it means to take a life, such as destroying innocence or causing severe emotional damage, we open the door to the death penalty being used for all sorts of behavior.

No one would applaud a child rapist, and I think kade may have shown a little irrational exuberence over the case. I cheer this as I would cheer offensive political speech given freely. It shows that certain rights are still protected- in this case the right to life for people who did not take a life.

I oppose the death penalty in general, so I realize my opinions are slanted. I just don't want to see America become a place where the death penalty can be used when a literal life has not been taken.

[pcosmar]

In my personal view, if I caught someone "at it" they would never see a courtroom, though I might.
However as is often the case people are accused and convicted with very little real evidence or ability to defend themselves. That is my main concern with a blanket use of the Death penalty.
I believe that as long as we have and use the Death Penalty it needs to be very tightly restricted.

[asgardshill]

Fortunately, the court got this one right.

Nope. But it takes different opinions to have a horse race, I guess.


There is no crime like child molestation where someone can be convicted with no real evidence whatsoever.

Inapplicable to this particular case. The death penalty in Louisiana wasn't applied to child molesters (which can mean just about any nonconsensual sexual behavior falling short of penetration), it was applied to child rapists.


Our society is really no different than the Roman days of bloodsports in the Colosseum. Along with fascism, executions are popular and appeal to the dumbed down masses.

Overblown and ridiculous hyperbole, for a number of reasons. If executions were all that popular, they would be televised and/or held in a venue large enough to hold 100,000 of these alleged bloodthirsty fascist viewers. There is continuing spirited debate in our society as to whether we should have a death penalty at all, something that would have not been tolerated in the time of the Romans.

[SovereignMN]

To me the court overstepped its bounds here. States are free to decide their own statues for how to deal with criminals. I don't think executing someone who rapes a child is cruel and unusual.

Some are using the slippery slope argument about "where to draw the line" and thinking that people could be executed for playing a violent video game. Well the reverse now applies. Now that you grant license to the Supreme Court to overturn the criminal statues of a State, where do they draw the line? Are all states going to now be required to deal with pot smokers, shoplifters and prostitutes according to federal guidelines or Supreme Court opinion?

Law needs to be applied at the most local level possible. It is more accountable to the people and open to less chance of abuse.

[amy31416]

I'm not a big believer in the death penalty, but when animals are sick, you put them down.

We need to accept that we aren't that far removed from the animal kingdom. I'm not going to shed a tear over a child rapist being put to death, even If personally don't agree.

I have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

+1.

We have a percentage of Americans who haven't committed a crime that are sentenced to death/maiming: our military.

I have zero sympathy for child rapists, but I'm also not a fan of the death penalty. I'm more of an "eye for an eye" kind of gal when it comes to certain crimes.

[sparebulb]

It appears that Assgard has studied the finer points of penetration with regard to children.

Why is this fascist cop on here anyway? Troll or operative?

[LibertyEagle]

To me the court overstepped its bounds here. States are free to decide their own statues for how to deal with criminals.

Exactly what I was thinking.


Law needs to be applied at the most local level possible. It is more accountable to the people and open to less chance of abuse.

[asgardshill]

I wouldn't say this gives child rapists liberty to rape- what it does is limits the right of a government to take a life when a life has not been taken. If we start to think abstractly about what it means to take a life, such as destroying innocence or causing severe emotional damage, we open the door to the death penalty being used for all sorts of behavior.

No one would applaud a child rapist, and I think kade may have shown a little irrational exuberence over the case. I cheer this as I would cheer offensive political speech given freely. It shows that certain rights are still protected- in this case the right to life for people who did not take a life.

I oppose the death penalty in general, so I realize my opinions are slanted. I just don't want to see America become a place where the death penalty can be used when a literal life has not been taken.

That's entirely fair, and there are excellent and compelling arguments as to why the death penalty should be abolished entirely. My take on it though is that if we DO have it, we should use it for good cause. And stopping child rapists from sucking up my oxygen is IMO a good cause.

[Acala]

You notice I left Thomas out of my original post, on purpose.

You can stop insulting me in your responses, or we can go back and forth. I seriously doubt you have actually read any real opinions thoroughly, or have any idea what the Supreme Court is doing at any given time... Your boy Thomas voted with the dissent in Boumediene v Bush, you should not be invoking limitations of Federal powers as your personal mantra and protection of these conservative judges... the four conservatives have helped Bush become a powerful almost dictator like president.

If you support Obama you are a fool. If you think the so-called liberal justices of the Supreme Court are forces for liberty you are a supreme fool. If you take that as an insult, tough.

I don't support most of what comes out of the Supreme Court, from either wing. At least Thomas has questioned the Court's Commerce Clause precedent and that puts him head and shoulders above the rest. But still far from perfect.

But here is a little prediction - it will be your beloved Liberal wing of the court that will dissent in the Heller opinion tomorow, ruling against an individual right to keep and bear arms. Care to bet on it? But maybe that will not be a problem for you since you support the gun-grabbing communist Obama.

[Kade]

If you support Obama you are a fool. If you think the so-called liberal justices of the Supreme Court are forces for liberty you are a supreme fool. If you take that as an insult, tough.

I don't support most of what comes out of the Supreme Court, from either wing. At least Thomas has questioned the Court's Commerce Clause precedent and that puts him head and shoulders above the rest. But still far from perfect.

But here is a little prediction - it will be your beloved Liberal wing of the court that will dissent in the Heller opinion tomorow, ruling against an individual right to keep and bear arms. Care to bet on it? But maybe that will not be a problem for you since you support the gun-grabbing communist Obama.

This has nothing to do with who I support for President. You have opened up another line of debate to give yourself some kind of internet "cool points".

I know a great deal more about the Supreme Court than you will ever in your lifetime. It's not an insult, it's you defining yourself a moron.

You also appear to not understand much about the Heller case, seeing as you spout it out with Republican talking points, instead of the question at hand... do you happen to know what the "question" is?

[asgardshill]

What I believe in not being debated. Is rape the same as murder? Are they proportional?

I believe they can be, especially when the victim is not emotionally prepared to defend him or herself as in the case of a child.


How far are we now going to extend capital punishment, the ability of the state to take human life, for non-murder? What is the limitation you are willing to set?

My limit this time was child rape.


Should we execute people for Grand Theft Auto next? If not, why not?

That question is a strawman. But I'll answer it anyway - no. Because we're not and we don't and doing so would be clearly unconstitutional. Sentencing car thieves to the death penalty for GTA would clearly violate the "unusual" part of the Eighth Amendment.

[Kade]

Exactly what I was thinking.

The 8th Amendment doesn't seem to specify that the right is reserved for everybody except those that live in states...

[Kade]

That question is a strawman. But I'll answer it anyway - no. Because we're not and we don't and doing so would be clearly unconstitutional. Sentencing car thieves to the death penalty for GTA would clearly violate the "unusual" part of the Eighth Amendment.

So you think it is "usual" and not necessarily cruel to allow the state to kill people for the rape of a child?

[asgardshill]

So you think it is "usual" and not necessarily cruel to allow the state to kill people for the rape of a child?

Where does the Constitution forbid the death penalty only except in cases of murder? Does the Second Amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms only if said arms are front-loading muzzleloaders that use black powder?

[Kade]

Where does the Constitution forbid the death penalty only except in cases of murder? Does the Second Amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms only if said arms are front-loading muzzleloaders that use black powder?

You didn't answer my question.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

The SCOTUS got this one right. Its not proportional to execute a "child" rapist. What do we do with female teachers who "rape" their 15, 16, 17 year old male students? Do they get the "needle" also? I think not.

And as to rape being worse than death, I think not. I'm sure that the victims are glad they are alive, to be at least able to try to live a normal life and get the tragedy that happened to them minimized as much as possible.

This comes from a husband who after 8 years of marriage, found out that his wife was molested and raped as a 6 to 12 year old. I am rather glad my wife lived, even if its effects came to the surface 30 years later, and she is too.


And as for Kennedy being a liberal, watch how he votes on the 2nd amendment case, i bet he votes with the conservative members and upholds the 2nd amendment. (just a prediction).

[asgardshill]

You didn't answer my question.

My questions speak directly to yours. Your answers to them will be indicative of mine.

[SovereignMN]

The SCOTUS got this one right. Its not proportional to execute a "child" rapist. What do we do with female teachers who "rape" their 15, 16, 17 year old male students? Do they get the "needle" also? I think not.


Not all crimes are equal. Rape of a 4 year is certainly worse than rape of a 16 year old who gives their consent. This is another reason why the criminal statues must be dealt with at the local level. Local communities can more easily discern the differences between crimes than 9 unelected old people in black robes living 2000 miles away.

[familydog]

This is sort of like how the Supreme Court outlawed the execution of minors because other countries frowned upon our laws.

As others here have pointed out, I don't see why these issues shouldn't be left up to the states.

This is judicial activism at its finest. What makes me sick is that people don't mind the court legislating from the bench when in suits their politics, yet are outraged when it goes against it.

[LibertyEagle]

The 8th Amendment doesn't seem to specify that the right is reserved for everybody except those that live in states...

If you're talking about the cruel and unusual punishment aspect, they were referring to not allowing things like disemboweling, drawing and quartering, and the like. You know... torture. It doesn't say at all that someone should not be put to death. The decision was designed to be left to the states. In this regard, child rapists would probably be more comfortable living in the state where you live; rather than where I live and would relocate, thusly. ;)

I agree with familydog that this is nothing but legislating from the bench and THAT is what is unconstitutional about this whole deal.

[Hiki]

At least you americans know how to persecute these kinds of people. Here in Finland rapists get like 2 years (or less, in worst case they get probation) in prison and have to pay a few thousand euros to the victim.
Although I disagree with the morality of death penalty (of course there are always a couple of exceptions), the punishments here in Finland are just unbelievably stupid.

[Acala]

You also appear to not understand much about the Heller case, seeing as you spout it out with Republican talking points, instead of the question at hand... do you happen to know what the "question" is?

My understanding of the issue in Heller is whether the DC ban on gun ownership violates the Second Amendment. It comes down to whether or not the 2nd protects an individual right or a collective right.

Now you tell me how I am wrong and how it is in the interest of liberty that the DC gun ban be upheld, as the justices you support will opine.

Obamaboy!

[ARealConservative]

Exactly what I was thinking.

yep.

the OP claims this is a victory for liberty - I don't see how.

This is a victory for unelected men in robes gaining more power - hardly a freedom victory

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yeah. The liberty to boink babies with no fear of getting the needle for doing so. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between liberty and license. And this bad and wrong decision crossed it.

Major Premise: A woman is an individual living soul.
Minor Premise: A souless fetus within a woman is an organ dependent on her larger soul.
Conclusion: Therefore, a soul is an independent life at birth.

Major Premise: An independent living soul begins at birth.
Minor Premise: Children cannot feed or care for themselves
Conclusion: A child is immature.

Major Premise: A child is immature.
Minor Premise: A life conceived at birth is a child.
Conclusion: Children need to be taken care of by their parents until they are mature.

[Kade]

If you're talking about the cruel and unusual punishment aspect, they were referring to not allowing things like disemboweling, drawing and quartering, and the like. You know... torture. It doesn't say at all that someone should not be put to death. The decision was designed to be left to the states. In this regard, child rapists would probably be more comfortable living in the state where you live; rather than where I live and would relocate, thusly. ;)

I agree with familydog that this is nothing but legislating from the bench and THAT is what is unconstitutional about this whole deal.


Why do I constantly hear Republican propaganda speak from you guys? I thought you were smarter than this...


Question: "Whether a state may constitutionally impose the death penalty for the rape of a child."

Decision:

1. "The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency thatmark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382."

2. "A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including
the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide
crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape." (Thus, "Unusual")

3. "Informed by its own precedents and its understanding of theConstitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its independent
judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportionalpunishment for the crime of child rape."

4. "The concern that the Court’s holding will effectively block further
development of a consensus favoring the death penalty for child rape overlooks the principle that the Eighth Amendment is definedby “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop, 356 U. S., at 101. Confirmed by the Court’s repeated, consistent rulings, this principle requires that resort tocapital punishment be restrained, limited in its instances of application,
and reserved for the worst of crimes, those that, in the case of crimes against individuals, take the victim’s life."


Sound.

[Kade]

My understanding of the issue in Heller is whether the DC ban on gun ownership violates the Second Amendment. It comes down to whether or not the 2nd protects an individual right or a collective right.

Now you tell me how I am wrong and how it is in the interest of liberty that the DC gun ban be upheld, as the justices you support will opine.

Obamaboy!

Obamaboy wouldn't be offensive if I really was, would it?

The decision of Heller will reflect a principal you have already rejected, that the states can and should make these decisions.

If you apply the 2nd Amendment thoughtfully to the states, the 8th Amendment also should be thoughtfully applied to the states, as understand by the Courts.

[LibertyEagle]

Obamaboy wouldn't be offensive if I really was, would it?

The decision of Heller will reflect a principal you have already rejected, that the states can and should make these decisions.

If you apply the 2nd Amendment thoughtfully to the states, the 8th Amendment also should be thoughtfully applied to the states, as understand by the Courts.

No. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear and so were the writings of the Founders about this. What's so difficult to understand that ...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is not a states' right issue at all.

[Theocrat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape

Unbelievable. Another 5-4 decision that has gone the way of liberty.

I thought the bench was permanently insane. The asinine "5", or the conservative wing of the bench has always included Justice Kennedy... who, after today's decision, looks to have converted completely back to sanity. This is the fifth or sixth time that Kennedy has no sided in the corner of reason.

That's now at least 3 of the "liberal" judges who were appointed by Conservative presidents, and who have now switched from being "conservative" upon realizing, finally, that they don't really have to answer to anyone.

This is what it means to be "liberal". To have some common sense, and to understand the rule of law, as Justice Breyer says...

I'll post the decision as soon as it is available.

Rejoice, we may yet make it out of the darkness.

And, as the article is extremely biased, they now refer to Kennedy openly as a "liberal", which if anyone of you follow as closely as I do, SCOTUS, know that Kennedy was never considered part of the left wing of the bench....

This is rather remarkable, and shows a general trend of all judges to eventually see the light of reason... (although I don't think Scalia, Alito, or Roberts will ever come to this point)

Injustice is liberty?! Kade, you are truly immoral, and may God have mercy on your soul. I guess you support the "rights" of rapists, too. Damn! Why are liberals so stupid?

[Kade]

No. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear and so were the writings of the Founders about this. What's so difficult to understand that ...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is not a states' right issue at all.

And "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is not clear enough for you?

[Kade]

Injustice is liberty?! Kade, you are truly immoral, and may God have mercy on your soul. I guess you support the "rights" of rapists, too. Damn! Why are liberals so stupid?

You will never be able to see the sheer irony in your response. Banning capital punishment for rapists would save more lives, than destroy. It will give an incentive to not kill the victim.

[Kade]

No. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear and so were the writings of the Founders about this. What's so difficult to understand that ...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is not a states' right issue at all.

And uh, because somebody needs to call you out for this, which founders?

Are you referring to the author of the Second Amendment, George Mason, who wrote originally:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."


Not so clear there chief...

Or were you referring to James Madison, who wrote:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."


Yes, crystal indeed. Please don't lecture me on the law, the founding fathers, or anything that you think you might possibly be in err of... I prefer an intellectual debate that doesn't resort to spin and propaganda. Many a learned men have argued and debated these points, and to so cavalierly dismiss one side with a simple talking point does not justice to the discourse of this country.

[Theocrat]

You will never be able to see the sheer irony in your response. Banning capital punishment for rapists would save more lives, than destroy. It will give an incentive to not kill the victim.

Rape is a capital crime, Kade. It is supposed to be punished by death. "Saving" the life of a rapist is no more effective than moving a fat person who's dieting next door to a Dunkin' Donuts.

[Kade]

Rape is a capital crime, Kade. It is supposed to be punished by death. "Saving" the life of a rapist is no more effective than moving a fat person who's dieting next door to a Dunkin' Donuts.

Some countries and cultures also believe that adultery, homosexuality, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, prostitution, blasphemy, contempt of court, disobedience towards parents, false witness, and sorcery are capital crimes.

What is your point?

[Theocrat]

Some countries and cultures also believe that adultery, homosexuality, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, prostitution, blasphemy, contempt of court, disobedience towards parents, false witness, and sorcery are capital crimes.

What is your point?

My point is that justice is defined by God, not the Courts, and in the case of the article you posted, I would say the Supreme Court stepped way out of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

[Kade]

My point is that justice is defined by God, not the Courts, and in the case of the article you posted, I would say the Supreme Court stepped way out of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

Backtrack. Lmfao. You are a real piece of work.

[Theocrat]

Backtrack. Lmfao. You are a real piece of work.

I'm sorry if you have a tough time believing the truth that our Christian nation was founded on Biblical laws of justice, and not the "atheistic" foolishness that you want to project into its history. That's your problem.

[Kade]

I'm sorry if you have a tough time believing the truth that our Christian nation was founded on Biblical laws of justice, and not the "atheistic" foolishness that you want to project into its history. That's your problem.

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/9/-/3/ChristianFascismPrisoner-e.jpg

[Theocrat]

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/9/-/3/ChristianFascismPrisoner-e.jpg

Christians who support these things really aren't being consistent with their beliefs as taught in the Scriptures. I stand with you in condemning those who advocate such acts and policies listed in the picture above.

[Acala]

Obamaboy wouldn't be offensive if I really was, would it?
.

Perhaps I owe you an apology. I was under the impression that you were planning to vote for Obama. If that is not the case, I apologize.



The decision of Heller will reflect a principal you have already rejected, that the states can and should make these decisions.

If you apply the 2nd Amendment thoughtfully to the states, the 8th Amendment also should be thoughtfully applied to the states, as understand by the Courts.


The Second Amendment has not been applied to the States and the Heller case does not raise that issue. DC is not a state.

[benny215]

To me the court overstepped its bounds here. States are free to decide their own statues for how to deal with criminals. I don't think executing someone who rapes a child is cruel and unusual.

Some are using the slippery slope argument about "where to draw the line" and thinking that people could be executed for playing a violent video game. Well the reverse now applies. Now that you grant license to the Supreme Court to overturn the criminal statues of a State, where do they draw the line? Are all states going to now be required to deal with pot smokers, shoplifters and prostitutes according to federal guidelines or Supreme Court opinion?

Law needs to be applied at the most local level possible. It is more accountable to the people and open to less chance of abuse.

I agree, and from what I read those that dissented stated that they believed it was up to the judgment of the state of Louisiana to decide.

[Kade]

Perhaps I owe you an apology. I was under the impression that you were planning to vote for Obama. If that is not the case, I apologize.





The Second Amendment has not been applied to the States and the Heller case does not raise that issue. DC is not a state.

I am planning on voting for Obama. I am not as excited about it to warrant the name...

And yes, D.C. not being a state makes it quite interesting of a decision. I will not be partisan in my analysis of the decision tomorrow.

[Chase]

I don't have anything to add to the discussion of the constitutional issue here, but I do want to point something out about the danger of allowing the death penalty to spread outside the domain of treason and murder. Simply put, you can find people (and overzealous prosecutors) that look down on drug crime just as much as they do rape. They could make the same kinds of arguments about the effect it has on a child's life, etc. I readily grant that such an argument is a total absurdity, and further point out that I am absolutely against the federal war on drugs. But I'm equally worried about how old court precedent tends to manifest itself in new cases when you have overzealous district attorneys in it for the glory.

[LibertyEagle]

And "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is not clear enough for you?

Fines and bails really aren't an issue, when you employ capital punishment. ;)

Again, cruel and unusual punishment, had to do with not torturing people. It did not relate to putting them to death, humanely.

But, of course, our socialist brethren have done their darnedest to once again, legislate from the bench and overturn the Founders' intent.

[Kade]

Fines and bails really aren't an issue, when you employ capital punishment. ;)

Again, cruel and unusual punishment, had to do with not torturing people. It did not relate to putting them to death, humanely.

But, of course, our socialist brethren have done their darnedest to once again, legislate from the bench and overturn the Founders' intent.

It has nothing to do with socialism LibertyEagle, you are being dishonest and you are using propaganda again... learn to speak without it, it would benefit this country. The truth is, the 8th Amendment is not clear, and I have made a case that if you go by "what was meant" in regards to the 8th Amendment, you MUST also go by "what was meant" in regards to the second amendment. You cannot just pick and choose based on your political leanings.

[PatriotOne]

Yeah. The liberty to boink babies with no fear of getting the needle for doing so. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between liberty and license. And this bad and wrong decision crossed it.

It is not often you and I agree, but I am giving you a +1 for this. If there ever was a time for the death penalty this is it. How anyone can celebrate this decision is beyond me.

[IRO-bot]

Kade, I am with you on this one. Respect for human life, no cruel and unusual punishment.

[LibertyEagle]

And uh, because somebody needs to call you out for this, which founders?

Are you referring to the author of the Second Amendment, George Mason, who wrote originally:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."


Not so clear there chief...



Here ya go, Tonto. :)

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Pretty damn clear to me.

Here's more....
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

[LibertyEagle]

It has nothing to do with socialism LibertyEagle, you are being dishonest and you are using propaganda again... learn to speak without it, it would benefit this country. The truth is, the 8th Amendment is not clear, and I have made a case that if you go by "what was meant" in regards to the 8th Amendment, you MUST also go by "what was meant" in regards to the second amendment. You cannot just pick and choose based on your political leanings.

I'm not. I think we should go by the founders' intent in both of them. Where we seem to be having a problem is with the Founders' intent. Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers?

BTW, yes, I think it's socialistic behavior when some stomp all over the Founders' intent so that they can put increasingly more power in the hands of the federal government.

[Kade]

Here ya go, Tonto. :)

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Pretty damn clear to me.

Here's more....
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html


Yes it is, and I don't disagree with him! The point I made is still valid my friend. In fact, you didn't quite deal with it at all.

[Kade]

I'm not. I think we should go by the founders' intent in both of them. Where we seem to be having a problem is with the Founders' intent. Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers?

I have. It is obvious to me that they didn't agree... but the most important, (IMO) of the Founder's did agree on one central theme... that their current government should not act as a ancestral tyranny on the future...

In other words, this country is OURS my friend... we just need more intelligent people willing to make and stand for the changes that would benefit us the most.

[SovereignMN]

A document cannot mean something that its writers did not intend. If someone can look at me with a straight face and say that the founders intended to outlaw capital punishment with the 8th amendment then they don't know their history.

[LibertyEagle]

In other words, this country is OURS my friend... we just need more intelligent people willing to make and stand for the changes that would benefit us the most.

In my opinion, the problem is that we have strayed too far from the Founders' intent. So the only changes I want to see are to get rid of this big government monolith that some very "intelligent people" have steered us toward and others, commonly referred to as "useful idiots" have gone along with .... even encouraged it.

You see, I agree with the saying that government is best, which governs least. We have really allowed some "intelligent people" to get us away from this position and it has resulted in a tremendous loss of our treasure and individual liberty. I happen to believe that our Founders, while not perfect, established one heck of great form of government for us, through the Constitution. The Campaign for Liberty is all about us creating the environment to "encourage" it to be followed.

By the way, "intelligence" does not necessarily equate with someone who has the liberty of this country's people in mind. There are all kinds of examples of intelligent traitors and very bad guys. Stalin was considered very intelligent; so was Marx. I wouldn't exactly want to trust guys like this to remake our government. Would you? Principles matter.

[syborius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape

Unbelievable. Another 5-4 decision that has gone the way of liberty.

I thought the bench was permanently insane. The asinine "5", or the conservative wing of the bench has always included Justice Kennedy... who, after today's decision, looks to have converted completely back to sanity. This is the fifth or sixth time that Kennedy has no sided in the corner of reason.

That's now at least 3 of the "liberal" judges who were appointed by Conservative presidents, and who have now switched from being "conservative" upon realizing, finally, that they don't really have to answer to anyone.

This is what it means to be "liberal". To have some common sense, and to understand the rule of law, as Justice Breyer says...

I'll post the decision as soon as it is available.

Rejoice, we may yet make it out of the darkness.

And, as the article is extremely biased, they now refer to Kennedy openly as a "liberal", which if anyone of you follow as closely as I do, SCOTUS, know that Kennedy was never considered part of the left wing of the bench....

This is rather remarkable, and shows a general trend of all judges to eventually see the light of reason... (although I don't think Scalia, Alito, or Roberts will ever come to this point)

This has next to ZERO to do with conservatism/liberalism.

[tonesforjonesbones]

The "intelligent" people...the "think tankers" the neo cons got us into the mess we are in right now . They all need to be deported. I am reading Pat Buchanan's book "Where Right went Wrong" ...it should be on that reading list. All I can say is...Bolsheviks. TONES

[Acala]

As predicted, the "Asinine 5" as Kade has labeled the more "conservative" of the Supreme Court justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun and Kade's so-called liberal wing, of course, dissented.

So there you go. It is a mixed bag. Sometimes one faction of justices will protect individual rights, sometimes the other faction will. But most of the time most of them support unrestrained government power. It is a mistake to align yourself with one side or the other. They pretty much suck in equal measures.

Now to get the second amendment applied to the States.

[Kade]

As predicted, the "Asinine 5" as Kade has labeled the more "conservative" of the Supreme Court justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun and Kade's so-called liberal wing, of course, dissented.

So there you go. It is a mixed bag. Sometimes one faction of justices will protect individual rights, sometimes the other faction will. But most of the time most of them support unrestrained government power. It is a mistake to align yourself with one side or the other. They pretty much suck in equal measures.

Now to get the second amendment applied to the States.

You will find that the decision is relatively flawed. Although I believe that it is far too late to overturn any sort of "right to arms", therefore believing that it is an American citizen's right to bear arms, I do think this decision changes nothing from the current status quo.

It is not a mixed bag. Owning a gun is a pathetic right compared to the right of free speech, assembly, due process, etc... things that the asinine 5 are known for arguing against.

I would have preferred that this decision be in a strong majority, but it is not... a 5-4 split guarantees more debate on the topic that is pointless and dragging on...

Of course a few idiots will chime in: "But guns guarantee my right to the others"....

Please. I person can control an army with a pen.

[ARealConservative]

It is not a mixed bag. Owning a gun is a pathetic right compared to the right of free speech, assembly, due process, etc... things that the asinine 5 are known for arguing against.

compared to speech and due process, property is a pathetic right.

Fortunately, rights are like commandments. We don't actually rank them. :p

[Kade]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/t1home.court.afp.gi.jpg

The very definition of asinine.

The corruption of basic human rights in this country is one of the most daunting and disturbing trends, and it is coming from one blatant idiotic side.... (I'm looking at you neo-libs)

[Andrew-Austin]

This comment isn't perfectly on topic, but I find life in prison a far more dehumanizing and worse punishment then death.

[ARealConservative]

This comment isn't perfectly on topic, but I find life in prison a far more dehumanizing and worse punishment then death.

most on death row disagree strongly.

It's the life wanting to live thingy that throws your theory into chaos.

[Andrew-Austin]

most on death row disagree strongly.

It's the life wanting to live thingy that throws your theory into chaos.

I think its called an opinion, and I don't really care if people on death row disagree with it.

[ARealConservative]

I think its called an opinion, and I don't really care if people on death row disagree with it.

until you are faced with being killed, your opinion is worthless to me.

[SovereignMN]

This comment isn't perfectly on topic, but I find life in prison a far more dehumanizing and worse punishment then death.

Depends on what life in prison implies. Does it imply a life in solitary confinement with no luxuries or does it imply free cable tv, free education and free access to exercise equipment?

[SeanEdwards]

As I noted, there are many MANY worse things than mere death. Child rape messes up if not destroys the victim for the rest of his or her natural life. Its the original "gift that keeps on giving."


Sounds like you want the child rapist to murder their victim, in order to spare them a lifetime of living with the memory of being raped.

That's kind of demented.

[asgardshill]

Sounds like you want the child rapist to murder their victim, in order to spare them a lifetime of living with the memory of being raped.

That's kind of demented.

"Demented" is absolutely right. I have never said anything remotely like you describe.

Sounds like you want to do entirely away with the death penalty. Lots of people feel the same way you do - they prefer to subsidize disease in human form in relative comfort for the rest of their lives. For that's the crux of your argument, isn't it? We should never levy the ultimate penalty because those we levy it against would have nothing to lose by killing as many people as they can get their hands on. C'mon now - at least be a little bit intellectually honest and just come right out and say that those poor deprived murderers and child rapists should have a human right to the optional HBO/Showtime package on their cable TV and Godiva chocolates on their pillows at beddie bye.

[Conza88]

Originally Posted by Kade
Are you an idiot?


No. Are you?


Haha. I that was hilarious, even if it wasn't intended to be. :D

[asgardshill]

Haha. I that was hilarious, even if it wasn't intended to be. :D

[Personal insult redacted by Moderator]

[Carole]

Hey, it is so reassuring to know that treason and espionage against the "state" command the death penalty over the brutal rape of a child who is a human being and may be psychologically scarred for life. She might be better dead than having to live it over and over. She has now been raped twice, secondly by the SCOTUS.

Heck, they don't even bother to execute traitors and spies these days. :eek:

If they did many of our politicians would be toast. :D

The upside to this is that Mr. Rape Criminal if incarcerated for life will be dealt with in prison such that he will wish he were dead.

[Andrew-Austin]

until you are faced with being killed, your opinion is worthless to me.

Thats nice, I'll let you know if I'm ever about to be convicted of murder. For now let the opinions of cowardly murders mean more to you then my own.


Depends on what life in prison implies. Does it imply a life in solitary confinement with no luxuries or does it imply free cable tv, free education and free access to exercise equipment?

True, some of those things would make a difference. Access to a decent library and gym, and the ability to not be prison raped.

[Carole]

I do not advocate the following, but:

In an earlier time in this country, was not horse thievery a hanging offense? Because it "could" cause the death of the victim?

Anyway, on the point of death penalty for rape, I see it as a stronger deterrent against child rape than life in prison. I just believe we should value the child as a human being more than the rapist deserves to live. We are soft on the rapist when he has license to rape knowing he cannot be executed. His "pleasure" ruins a life, destroys a life as surely as if he had committed murder. Rape is such a heinous crime that the crime itself is repeated by the victim over and over hundreds and thousands of times. Isn't the victim recieiving the real punishment?

I advocate the death penalty for the rape of a physically and emotionally defenseless child. The child cannot fight back, and to say that the only reason the rapist should not pay with his life is because his victim "lived" through it is perverted.

[Peace&Freedom]

The decision is largely a nothing burger as far as addressing state gun control laws, because the case ruled on a D.C. gun ban. The District of Columbia is an entirely Federal entity, thus a decision saying an individual right cannot be infringed upon in a federal territory says nothing about the situation in the states of the union. If anything it may be misapplied to justify (by the Court's silence on the matter) all manner of registration, permit and licensing schemes designed to thwart reasonable access to gun ownership.

[Carole]

Well, I abhor treason and espionage as well, but such crimes against the state that do not cause deaths that can be proved, apparently more heinous than a child rape victim.

I agree that there must be the most serious of crimes to command the death penalty, but I cannot reconcile treason and espionage against a state (which has the ability to defend itself)over a human child (who cannot defend herself or himself) when of these results in a death.

We witness treason on a daily basis in this country by our leaders/politicians. They will NEVER pay the ultimate penalty. A child is thus rendered of lower value than these traitors.

Perhaps it is a matter so important as Dr. Pul says, that it SHOULD be left to the states to legislate as they deem fit. This is his philosophy, that the more important the issue, the closer to local should be the laws.

In any case, I think one must look closely at each case in order to be as certain as possible that the case demands or does not demand the death penalty. I do not advocate a blanket death penalty, but feel it should at least be on the table for such cases as child rape.

[Kade]

Hey, it is so reassuring to know that treason and espionage against the "state" command the death penalty over the brutal rape of a child who is a human being and may be psychologically scarred for life. She might be better dead than having to live it over and over. She has now been raped twice, secondly by the SCOTUS.

Heck, they don't even bother to execute traitors and spies these days. :eek:

If they did many of our politicians would be toast. :D

The upside to this is that Mr. Rape Criminal if incarcerated for life will be dealt with in prison such that he will wish he were dead.

You are a sick puppy.

[ARealConservative]

Thats nice, I'll let you know if I'm ever about to be convicted of murder. For now let the opinions of cowardly murders mean more to you then my own. .

I'll be holding my breath. :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

She might be better dead than having to live it over and over. She has now been raped twice, secondly by the SCOTUS.


I feel it is worth pointing out that the only reason a rape is so much more heinous then a severe beating is because of public stigmatism....sort of like how you are acting like her life has been ruined and somehow her life is not worth living because of what happened to her.

Just something to consider.

[Carole]

I feel it is worth pointing out that the only reason a rape is so much more heinous then a severe beating is because of public stigmatism....sort of like how you are acting like her life has been ruined and somehow her life is not worth living because of what happened to her.

Just something to consider.
According to whom? Certainly not the child!!

No, I do not really advocate that the child should have died, but having lived, her life could, YES, very well be a life worse than death. Some adult women never recover from rape. A child's mind can be a fragile thing. Some children might pay for being a victim of rape their entire lives.

I am saying if a state has determined it is important enough to place the death penalty on the table, then SCOTUS should not overturn it. The matter is too important and needs local attention precisely for that reason. A free pass for rapists to escape the death penalty is not conducive to deterring child rape.

Child rape trumps treason and espionage.

Your comment is astounding.

[Kade]

I feel it is worth pointing out that the only reason a rape is so much more heinous then a severe beating is because of public stigmatism....sort of like how you are acting like her life has been ruined and somehow her life is not worth living because of what happened to her.

Just something to consider.

I know you are pro-life, but consider her response in comparison to someone who is pro-choice... the irony...

I support severe punishment for rapists. I believe it the worse crime outside murder.
That itself is a social construct, but one I am influenced by personally.

This comes down to three principles.

1. The "incentive" to spare the girl's life is gone. A child rapist has no compelling reason to allow her/him to live.
2. No white man has been executed for the rape of a child. All executions have been black man killed for raping white woman. This is fact.
3. Allowing the government to kill for social constructs is a slippery slope. It should be reserved for the most destructive and dangerous behavior, that results in the malicious death of many. If this is rule is ignored, the government can be justified in killing anyone for any socially acceptable reason... ie, homosexuality...etc..

[Acala]

You will find that the decision is relatively flawed. Although I believe that it is far too late to overturn any sort of "right to arms", therefore believing that it is an American citizen's right to bear arms, I do think this decision changes nothing from the current status quo.

It is not a mixed bag. Owning a gun is a pathetic right compared to the right of free speech, assembly, due process, etc... things that the asinine 5 are known for arguing against.

I would have preferred that this decision be in a strong majority, but it is not... a 5-4 split guarantees more debate on the topic that is pointless and dragging on...

Of course a few idiots will chime in: "But guns guarantee my right to the others"....

Please. I person can control an army with a pen.


Face it Kade - the justices you like voted on the wrong side of this issue and the justices you don't like were on the right side.

Your obfuscation is to no avail. Your attempt to diminish the importance of gun ownership is weak.

The fact is that the justices you have been praising voted for government power and against individual freedom. The fact that the justices who were on the right side here have been wrong before does not change the fact that the justices that you like SUCK just as much as the rest of them. They just represent different facets of the same tyranny.

Poor Obama will now be limited in his ability to ban guns. So sad. Individual rights are such a pesky obstacle to effective dictatorship. Hahahahaha! :D

[ARealConservative]

I know you are pro-life, but consider her response in comparison to someone who is pro-choice... the irony...

I support severe punishment for rapists. I believe it the worse crime outside murder.
That itself is a social construct, but one I am influenced by personally.

This comes down to three principles.

1. The "incentive" to spare the girl's life is gone. A child rapist has no compelling reason to allow her/him to live.
2. No white man has been executed for the rape of a child. All executions have been black man killed for raping white woman. This is fact.
3. Allowing the government to kill for social constructs is a slippery slope. It should be reserved for the most destructive and dangerous behavior, that results in the malicious death of many. If this is rule is ignored, the government can be justified in killing anyone for any socially acceptable reason... ie, homosexuality...etc..

I understand your position, and they are grounded in reality.

I'm a fence sitter. I oppose the death penalty, but I also oppose interference in the wishes of the people of other governments.

Ultimately, self determination wins out over my own qualms of using the death penalty. Allowing unelected men to overthrow the wishes of the people is the worst travesty IMO.

[ARealConservative]

According to whom? Certainly not the child!!

The child is influenced by society

[Carole]

I am not opposed to punishing wrongdoing.
I am opposed to the over use of the Death penalty.
I am opposed to rabid prosecutors.

I have many good reasons, and have known some who have been abused by a corrupt system.

For a few examples,
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I totally agree that overuse of the death penalty is very, very bad.

I totally agree that rabid prosecutors can be very bad.

I totally agree that much abuse occurs in our corrupt system, especially due to politics in the courtroom.

I just value a human child more than a crime against the state. If I had to choose between treason/espionage and child rape, I would choose allowing the states to decide if child rape cases on a case by case basis deserved the death penalty. I would rather forego the death penalty for treason and espionage and let them rot in prison than to sacrifice chldren ahead of treason and espionage.

[Carole]

Well said Sovereign. :)

Part of the globalist view is the dehumanizing of people. We are not ants to be squashed nor flies to be swatted, yet the globalist agenda, the social and fascist agenda will more and more lessen the value of human life and blur the lines between good and bad.

That is indeed a slippery slope, for a country which minimizes human individuals and worships inanimate group collectivism is well on the road to ruin.

Is one life more valuable than another? I believe only in the most extreme cases we must make examples of an exceptionally heinous life of an individual. The child rapist is such a case, but only with excellent evidence of the crime.

[Carole]

Kade, I am with you on this one. Respect for human life, no cruel and unusual punishment.
Hey, let them execute the rapist gently then. Unlike how the rapist committed his act not so gently.

[Carole]

Of course a few idiots will chime in: "But guns guarantee my right to the others"....

Please. I person can control an army with a pen.

Not when they have already removed all the other Bill of Rights. This is the last one left. Do you not get it?

[Carole]

In the case of the child rapist, I have heard and read that life in prison is very, very dehumanizing, perhaps enough to make the rapist wish for death.

[Carole]

If you say so. :)

[Kade]

Face it Kade - the justices you like voted on the wrong side of this issue and the justices you don't like were on the right side.

Your obfuscation is to no avail. Your attempt to diminish the importance of gun ownership is weak.

The fact is that the justices you have been praising voted for government power and against individual freedom. The fact that the justices who were on the right side here have been wrong before does not change the fact that the justices that you like SUCK just as much as the rest of them. They just represent different facets of the same tyranny.

Poor Obama will now be limited in his ability to ban guns. So sad. Individual rights are such a pesky obstacle to effective dictatorship. Hahahahaha! :D

Obama believes in gun ownership actually. Quit trying to spin things.. I don't consider gun rights the pinnacle of individual rights... sorry.

[Kade]

Not when they have already removed all the other Bill of Rights. This is the last one left. Do you not get it?

I specifically added that in there to PREVENT the stupid post you just made... I see it did not work.

Yes, I get it. There are ways of doing more damage and more harm to a tyrannical government than a handgun.

[Indy4Chng]

To me the court overstepped its bounds here. States are free to decide their own statues for how to deal with criminals. I don't think executing someone who rapes a child is cruel and unusual.

Some are using the slippery slope argument about "where to draw the line" and thinking that people could be executed for playing a violent video game. Well the reverse now applies. Now that you grant license to the Supreme Court to overturn the criminal statues of a State, where do they draw the line? Are all states going to now be required to deal with pot smokers, shoplifters and prostitutes according to federal guidelines or Supreme Court opinion?

Law needs to be applied at the most local level possible. It is more accountable to the people and open to less chance of abuse.

+1

[asgardshill]

This was my thread, assguardshrill. I would actually like to avoid you if at all possible, you're visual harpy screeching is like one of those infomercial woman who can't talk enough about how great the penis enlargement pills worked.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/ogmilkbone.gif

Good boy.

[Kade]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/ogmilkbone.gif

Good boy.

That's it?

You bore me assguard.

[SovereignMN]

I
This comes down to three principles.

1. The "incentive" to spare the girl's life is gone. A child rapist has no compelling reason to allow her/him to live.
2. No white man has been executed for the rape of a child. All executions have been black man killed for raping white woman. This is fact.
3. Allowing the government to kill for social constructs is a slippery slope. It should be reserved for the most destructive and dangerous behavior, that results in the malicious death of many. If this is rule is ignored, the government can be justified in killing anyone for any socially acceptable reason... ie, homosexuality...etc..

1. Principle #1 is irrelevant. You have no idea what goes through the mind of a child rapist. You are assumping a lot of things in this sentence. First, you are assuming that a child rapist will not be deterred by capital punishment. Second, you are assuming that a child rapist will decide to carry out his crime regardless of the punishment and think logically about how to get out of it. Why would you assume that someone that is so mentally sick that they could do that to a child can be cunning?

2. Principle #2 is irrelevant. First, nobody has been executed for a rape in over 40 years. Just because the punishment may have been applied in a racist manner 40 years ago doesn't mean it's being applied in a racist manner now. Also, the misapplication of a criminal statute doesn't mean that the statute itself is problematic.

3. Principle #3 is a straw man. The reverse could also be true. By allowing the feds to rule what a state can/cannot legislate in it's criminal statutes the feds are now free to overrule the states on other manners. What would stop the feds from saying that a state is punishing prostitution, drugs or other "crimes" out of compliance of federal regulations?

[V-rod]

Death penalty for rape does not make much sense. There been cases where an adult had physically tortured children most viciously but did not do it sexually. Legalizing death penalty for that would open up a Pandora's box of legal trouble.

I do for one think every state should pass a law to make all child rapists and molesters to be kept in General Population in the prison. So the Warden wouldn't be held accountable when the inmates tear them a new one. :D

[Acala]

Obama believes in gun ownership actually.. Quit trying to spin things..

Obama is a lying sack of crap who will say anything to get elected. He has no more concern for the right to own a gun than Sarah Brady. Here is the record without my "spin":

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So what you said is false. He is a gun grabber and is now lying about it.

If you don't want to be Obamaboy, you should try being honest about your candidate instead of lying for him. And HE should be honest about his positions - if he actually has any.




I don't consider gun rights the pinnacle of individual rights... sorry.

That is exactly the problem. You, and millions of people like you on both sides of the false left/right divide, believe they can pick and choose freedoms. "I'll fight for the freedoms I like, but the freedoms you like are crap so fuck you - rot in jail" "I don't care if gun rights are eliminated so long as free speech is protected" "I don't care about free speech as long as my business isn't regulated" Etc. The RESULT is that EVERYONE'S freedom is destroyed.

The big difference between you and most people on this Board is that most of us will fight for the freedoms YOU think are important as well as those WE think are important. You won't. That makes you part of the problem.

[Kade]

The big difference between you and most people on this Board is that most of us will fight for the freedoms YOU think are important as well as those WE think are important. You won't. That makes you part of the problem.

That is absolutely and patently false. I do fight and stand for gun ownership rights... not as some obscure "right" given by the Constitution either... most of the people on this board, you included, fight only for the rights you agree with... period. I do THINK gun rights are important, which is why I mentioned that I would prefer a stronger majority. YOU are part of the problem, especially adding to this constant bashing... it's not my fault that so many of you are incapable of holding an intellectual position without insulting or flaming.

[Personal insult redacted by Moderator]

[LibertyEagle]

Chill out with the insults, people. They're coming from both sides.

[LibertyEagle]

compared to speech and due process, property is a pathetic right.

Fortunately, rights are like commandments. We don't actually rank them. :p

Huh? Private property is one of the most important rights.

[V-rod]

Obama believes in gun ownership actually. Quit trying to spin things.. I don't consider gun rights the pinnacle of individual rights... sorry.

Obama stated he believes people should own guns at home, but not to carry them concealed. He wants a federal law to stop anyone other than police to carry a concealed firearm.

[ARealConservative]

Huh? Private property is one of the most important rights.

not compared to speech and due process.

[V-rod]

not compared to speech and due process.

Private Property is equally as important if not MORE than speech and due process.

[ARealConservative]

Private Property is equally as important if not MORE than speech and due process.

I respectfully disagree.

Free speech is the most important right we have. Give us free speech and the wisdom to use it, and other rights will remain secure.

[V-rod]

I respectfully disagree.

Free speech is the most important right we have. Give us free speech and the wisdom to use it, and other rights will remain secure.

Private Property does not only mean land, it is also our personal possessions. Being deprived of that is a little worse than being deprived of our free speech, which is also terrible on itself.

[orafi]

You can't have private property without free speech. It doesn't make sense. There's ar eason why it's the first amendment.

[ARealConservative]

Private Property does not only mean land, it is also our personal possessions. Being deprived of that is a little worse than being deprived of our free speech, which is also terrible on itself.

If I was set to turn this nation in to a police state, the first thing I would do is take away your rights to peaceful assembly.

Once that was done, I could start taking your property and lock you up for arguing about it.

I value my speech far more then my possessions.

[Acala]

most of the people on this board, you included, fight only for the rights you agree with... period.

Aren't you the guy who endorsed "mixed economy" where the government gets to take money from one person at gunpoint and give it to another?

I also thought you were the guy who said: "Owning a gun is a pathetic right compared to . . ." and supports a gun-grabbing candidate.

Now that we have established some rights you don't care about (economic and firearms) Which rights have you identified that I don't fight for?

[hypnagogue]

I'm perplexed by this bickering over which rights are more important. All just rights support each other. Lacking in one area only encourages loss in another. It's important that a citizen have a fully fleshed body of rights they can call upon to deal with the various situations they may face.

[Acala]

I'm perplexed by this bickering over which rights are more important. All just rights support each other. Lacking in one area only encourages loss in another. It's important that a citizen have a fully fleshed body of rights they can call upon to deal with the various situations they may face.

Exactly my point!!!! Liberty cannot be sliced and diced. You can't pick and choose among freedoms. The result will be what we have now - an erosion of ALL freedom. People either own their own lives, bodies and property or they don't. Government is either servant or master, it can't be servant one day and master the next.

Fighting for only some freedoms and turning your back on others is a strategy for failure.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm perplexed by this bickering over which rights are more important. All just rights support each other. Lacking in one area only encourages loss in another. It's important that a citizen have a fully fleshed body of rights they can call upon to deal with the various situations they may face.

It took reading the whole thread to come upon the pearl of wisdom at the very and. (and beat me to the punch)

Parsing the bill of rights in this manner does lead to failure. All rights enumerated therein are equally important, and one cannot be diminished without leading to the diminishment of others.

The liberal/conservative wings of the SCROTUS seem intent on following that path.

For the record I would give both rulings discussed in this thread a "C" on the merits of individual liberty.

I find myself in a rare position of agreeing with Kade, that the "child rape" decision was correct, without delving into the very real concern of judicial overreach. Rape, child or otherwise, is often very difficult to prove, evidence difficult to obtain and testimony easily manipulated. I no longer support capital punishment because so many people that appeared on the surface to be "slam dunk" guilty were, in fact, not. Many of these people were railroaded into that position by a combination of corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges. Anything that can limit these things is a plus.

Heller is at least a step in the right direction. It will now take one gazillion lawswuits for government to define what a "reasonable restriction" might be (none) and what the words "shall not infringe" mean. (what they say)

[Anti Federalist]

One other point:

Repugnicans will try to make political hay over this, "See, better vote for McSame, or you'll end up with liberal judges".

Recall that W's first choice for his first SCROTUS nomination was Harriet Miers (sp) who would have surely voted to put a stake in the heart of the 2nd Amendment.

Only widespread and vocal outrage put a stop (barely) to that.

[kombayn]

Wow, this is a feisty topic. First off all the death penalty & what Bobby Jindal just tried to pass "chemical castration" are violations of the 8th amendment. Seriously, how can anyone justify cruel & unusual punishment on a criminal. It makes you no better than that criminal. Send them to the prison system where a lot more damage will be done by a quick fix of death or scarring someones penis. Seriously, WTF? Do we even live in America anymore?

[SovereignMN]

I find myself in a rare position of agreeing with Kade, that the "child rape" decision was correct, without delving into the very real concern of judicial overreach. Rape, child or otherwise, is often very difficult to prove, evidence difficult to obtain and testimony easily manipulated. I no longer support capital punishment because so many people that appeared on the surface to be "slam dunk" guilty were, in fact, not. Many of these people were railroaded into that position by a combination of corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges. Anything that can limit these things is a plus.

I'm sorry but that is the wrong line of thinking. You are putting your personal opinion and the feeling that justice is misused in certain situations to justify the federal government making a blanket statement about what states can and cannot have in their criminal statutes.

Just because rape CAN be difficult to prove doesn't mean it always is. What if the guy videotapes it? What if his DNA is all over the inside of a little girl? These are situations and circumstances best dealt with at the LOCAL LEVEL.

I think Ron Paul would be embarassed at how many of his supporters are in favor of the Supreme Court overriding the criminal statues in a state.

[Kade]

I respectfully disagree.

Free speech is the most important right we have. Give us free speech and the wisdom to use it, and other rights will remain secure.

I have a feeling that you and I may be more of the same mold than we originally thought...

[familydog]

Originally the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Now, they are arbitrarily picking and choosing which ones they want to apply to states and which ones they don't. Gotta love it.

[ARealConservative]

I have a feeling that you and I may be more of the same mold than we originally thought...

I didn't ask for that bullseye :p

[ARealConservative]

Originally the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Now, they are arbitrarily picking and choosing which ones they want to apply to states and which ones they don't. Gotta love it.

the supreme court didn't determine that originally, that was the clear original intent of the constitution.

In fact, the only reason we have a bill of rights is we were concerned that our newly elected federal government would boss the states around.

The only thing Hamilton got right was his concern hat the bill of rights would cloud the issue.

[Kade]

Originally the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Now, they are arbitrarily picking and choosing which ones they want to apply to states and which ones they don't. Gotta love it.

I agree, however, I'm more worried about the expansion of the executive branch under the Supreme Court than anything. In regards to the right to gun ownership, I think that we could, in reality, argue about what the framer's specifically meant... I do believe that the older courts were correct in their analysis, specifically in applying the word, "regulated" to the right. The decision is a relative draw for both sides, one being the moderate side for the advocacy of gun control, the other being an absolutist stance, guns flowing everywhere to everyone... This decision did not do anything remarkably different, except create further precedence to some forms of gun control, as noted in the in decision.

Review these decisions for more information and some interesting opinions:

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
United States v. Miller (1939)

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sorry but that is the wrong line of thinking. You are putting your personal opinion and the feeling that justice is misused in certain situations to justify the federal government making a blanket statement about what states can and cannot have in their criminal statutes.

Just because rape CAN be difficult to prove doesn't mean it always is. What if the guy videotapes it? What if his DNA is all over the inside of a little girl? These are situations and circumstances best dealt with at the LOCAL LEVEL.

I think Ron Paul would be embarassed at how many of his supporters are in favor of the Supreme Court overriding the criminal statues in a state.

Oh c'mon now. What if a state legalized cannibalism? Or human sacrifice?

And I happen to think Ron Paul would be embarassed at the level of bloodlust and revenge displayed by some of his supporters.

Because that's all this is, something so outrageous, something so sick and twisted that a misplaced sense of justice cries out for revenge.

But the fact is a great many rape and molestation accusations are founded on nothing but hearsay and petty disputes and domestic arguments.

I'm sure Jefferson would like to see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent one get executed, let alone jailed.

I'm on the fence on this, simply because everything has become so muddied and bastardized that nothing clear can be discerned. That was why I rated the ruling a "C".

Until such time as a state or group of states decides "enough is enough" and declares themselves free and independent of the fedgov (A course of action I'm fully in favor of) then we'll all be bound to these "half hearted" decisions.

[ARealConservative]

Oh c'mon now. What if a state legalized cannibalism? Or human sacrifice?

That is why the federal government will protects our rights to travel freely.

And is also why your slippery slope is absurd. Nobody would remain in such a state unless they were not free to leave. Workers would leave, companies would have to leave...

What if Mexico legalized human sacrifice - you vote to go to war with them over it?

That makes you a federalist interventionist :p

[familydog]

Oh c'mon now. What if a state legalized cannibalism? Or human sacrifice?

And I happen to think Ron Paul would be embarassed at the level of bloodlust and revenge displayed by some of his supporters.

Because that's all this is, something so outrageous, something so sick and twisted that a misplaced sense of justice cries out for revenge.

I hope you are not equating the support states rights with automatic support of the death penalty.

[familydog]

I agree, however, I'm more worried about the expansion of the executive branch under the Supreme Court than anything. In regards to the right to gun ownership, I think that we could, in reality, argue about what the framer's specifically meant... I do believe that the older courts were correct in their analysis, specifically in applying the word, "regulated" to the right. The decision is a relative draw for both sides, one being the moderate side for the advocacy of gun control, the other being an absolutist stance, guns flowing everywhere to everyone... This decision did not do anything remarkably different, except create further precedence to some forms of gun control, as noted in the in decision.

Review these decisions for more information and some interesting opinions:

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
United States v. Miller (1939)

I don't agree with everything that you put forth. I do agree that the exapansion of executrive branch power is a major concern. Actually it is frightening.