Posted on 06/25/2008 7:44:48 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
You are mistaken if you think that promoting conservatism is the GOP's purpose.
There is a reason that the GOP doesn't 'take advantage' of the numerous opportunities handed to it. They don't want to. The GOP only exists as an ineffective 'alternative' to liberals. They really work hand-in-hand with them. The Demos call it 'bi-partisanship' and the GOP is quite proud to engage in it.
After a steep, liberal, cultural slide, the electorate turns to the GOP to change things. The GOP does nothing socially for as long as possible, which gives the new lower cultural state time to become the 'normal state' and frustrate the electorate. The electorate then turns back to the liberals who restart the steep cultural slide as the cycle repeats itself.
Repeat ad infinitum and voila, the destruction of a society.
What a horrible ruling! This Supreme Court “cherry picks precedents” more egregiously than the ‘Rats accused the Bush Administration of “cherry picking” intelligence on Saddam Hussein.
You and me both. I’m feeling almost sick this has me wound so tight right now.
It’s another matter of gray areas.
An absolute declaration that child rape can yield the death penalty risks a situation where different states define “child” at different ages. A 14 yr old and an 18 yr old situation could arise, with the 18 yr old facing the death penalty.
Then there is the mental retardation scenario where a 17 yr old is evaluated to have “a mental age” of 8 and an 18 yr old male is involved, and subject to death penalty.
It’s a situation where you risk some 14 yr olds and 17 yr olds being in one category and others being in a different category — which clearly violates the equal protection clauses.
This was probably a good decision.
Where does the Constitution say that only murderers can receive capital punishment?
It’s right next to the section that gives women the right to execute their unborn children for the crime of being inconvenient.
We live in an oligarchy. Why are allowing the SCOTUS to decide these cases - these are state rights and are not privy to SCOTUS review. We need a constitutional crises in this country - either we abide by the tenants of the constitution or we do not. But to keep allowing unelected judges to make law and decide issues that are unconstitutional is creating anarchy.
What are you mad at Roberts for?
Which is what the patriot movement of the 90's was all about.
You saw how effectively Clintoon handled that, didn't you?
It's over, dude.
Remember Kennedy was Reagan's third choice for the Supreme Court vacancy in 1987. I sure wish Bork had been nominated in 1986. The DemocRATS could not have afforded to block Scalia if he had been nominated in 1987.
Kennedy never deserved respect. He was the swing vote that kept Roe v. Wade from being overturned in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. The blood of millions of innocents is on his hands. Kennedy will go down in history as a champion of child-murder, rape and sodomy.
Pursuant to this reasoning, you can kiss the “three strikes” laws goodbye.
Is shooting a child rapist caught in the act a bad idea? Last I checked it was legal, but should it be? According to the supreme court, that punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Previously, all rape carried with it the assumed immediate threat of death if the victim refused to cooperate - it was just assumed for the sake of legal self defense regardless of whether or not a weapon or threat was presented. Apparently, the supreme court thinks that the immediate threat of death isn’t good enough to justify a death sentence. It ought to have serious ramifications for lethal force defense against rape, but that would make the judges’ tyranny too obvious.
I will not sit out this election and I will not be voting for that fake wannabee Obama./Just Asking - seoul62......
Bullshit. It was a horrible decision. There is no “risk” of that, because if such a situation ever arose the Court could always consider that specific challenge. It does this in many other areas. There is no reason the Court couldn’t uphold the death penalty for people who rape little kids and also disallow the punishment for statutory rape between teenagers. This is no gray area.
Oh, and your equal protection analysis is laughable.
Justice Kennedy made a distintion between crimes against the State and crimes against an individual.
There is nothing in the constitution that says that capital punishment is reserved for murder.
It’s simply not there. The judges made it up.
The penalty should match the crime, not our hatred of the crime.
I argued once that the death penalty should be removed for kidnapping, because it gave the perp reason to kill his witness. Any parent would want their child back, but the perp lost nothing more by killing the victim as both kidnapping and murder carried the same penalty.
There’s something to think about here. I believe we should set the stage where the victims’ lives are not in greater jeopardy because of our call for vengeance. The protection of the victim is of greater concern than anything else.
That being said, I’ve heard that the prisoners deal harshly with those who harm the most innocent. If we lock them up forever they can never hurt another child and they will live a hell on earth. That’s ok with me.
The ultimate punishment should be reserved for the ultimate crime.
Agreed, just “expand the size of the court.” Makes sense to me.
“Another worthless Demolncrat victimizing the VICTIM again.”
And where DID the myth come from that the democrats are friends of the “underdog?”
They want to keep killing innocent babies, and here we see they are on the side of rapists and killers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.