If It Please the (Political) Court

[MaximumSam]

Why the attack on Ginsburg. That position is hardly political, but common sense.

[Warlady]

Sam are you saying you are against the execution of Tim McVeigh?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

MaxSam,

Sorry if it looks like you're being ganged up on, but do you really mean to say that the solution to uneven application of a law is to get rid of the law? This seems to be Ginsburg's thesis in this. Seems to me the real solution is more even application of the law.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Good judges scrupulously avoid public comment on matters that may come before them. "Justice" Darth Vader Ginzburg, is not a good judge. In most jurisdictions what she did would be cause to investigate whether she should be removed from the bench.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The RANDy Corporation:
Good judges scrupulously avoid public comment on matters that may come before them. "Justice" Darth Vader Ginzburg, is not a good judge. In most jurisdictions what she did would be cause to investigate whether she should be removed from the bench.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RANDy: You nailed it.

Ginzburg is not a judge. She's an arrogant bitch who thinks her own emotions, caprice and arbitrariness are more important than doing her nails.

They ain't! She doesn't belong on the Supreme Court or any court.

She should stick with doing her nails.

Achilles.

[MaximumSam]

Warlady,

Sam are you saying you are against the execution of Tim McVeigh?

Personally, yes, I am against the death penalty. Legally, I don't know - I didn't follow the trial all that closely. However, Justice Ginsburg said she supports state moratoriums on the death penalty because it's skewed towards killing poor people. I don't think that is right, legally or otherwise.

Sorry if it looks like you're being ganged up on, but do you really mean to say that the solution to uneven application of a law is to get rid of the law? This seems to be Ginsburg's thesis in this. Seems to me the real solution is more even application of the law.

Depends on the law. In this instance, uneven enforcement of the law leads to people getting killed unfairly. That seems like a good instance to end the law.

Randy,

Good judges scrupulously avoid public comment on matters that may come before them. "Justice" Darth Vader Ginzburg, is not a good judge. In most jurisdictions what she did would be cause to investigate whether she should be removed from the bench.

Yeah, but this is the Supreme Court, and what she said made sense. I can't really see this affecting much of anything, anyway.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

a fortiori Sam

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Sorry Sam, but it's actually a case of people being allowed to live unfairly - those who commit murder but get off with a "life sentence". If you don't like the death penalty, you will need to change the constitution, the clause which states that no man may be deprived of [i]life,[/] liberty, or property without due process of law.

[MaximumSam]

Sorry Sam, but it's actually a case of people being allowed to live unfairly - those who commit murder but get off with a "life sentence".

I don't know about that. That's more of a personal opinion than legal reasoning. I'm Catholic, and that's where my anti-death penalty opinion comes from.

If you don't like the death penalty, you will need to change the constitution, the clause which states that no man may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

That's an interesting angle, but that clause does not state that we must have a death penalty. Furthermore, I don't think these people usually get due process, and oftentimes their attorneys are woefully inept or they have very little resources. Also, an equal protection claim could be made, as the ratio is also scewed towards killing minorities. I also think it infringes on the 8th amendmnet.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeteS in CA:
Sorry Sam, but it's actually a case of people being allowed to live unfairly - those who commit murder but get off with a "life sentence". If you don't like the death penalty, you will need to change the constitution, the clause which states that no man may be deprived of [i]life,[/] liberty, or property without due process of law.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PeteS:

The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," which creates the constitutional basis for challenging the death penalty.

I think the death penalty constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

The excerpt from the fourteenth amendment you quote does not provide a constitutional basis for the death penalty. Quite the contrary; this provision limits the state's police power rather than granting it additional police power.

Achilles.

[Rhino]

I'd like to see the evidence of this "skewing". I remember a debate in Texas a while back claiming that blacks were 40% more likely to receive a death sentence than whites. Turns out they were using raw numbers and not adjusting for crimes committed by race. When you looked at percentages of murderers given the death sentence, the figures came out about the same. They were avoiding the fact that blacks committed 40% more murders in Texas.

[MaximumSam]

Rhino,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racerpt.html
has some pretty exhaustive info on the subject.

Something else I neglected to mention was that blacks are more likely to be sentenced to death if they kill a white person.

[Rhino]

Got anything non-partisan?

[MaximumSam]

Well, you can probably check the facts on his stuff by looking at the data. I was looking around at Texas'. For something pretty interesting and totally unrelated to race go to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/finalmeals.htm

[Rhino]

Yeah, seen that before. A jar of dill pickles?????? I laughed at the guy who ordered world peace. Reminded me of that movie, Miss Congeniality.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

As soon as abortion is banned then so can the death penalty

[oracle]

IF IT PLEASE THE (POLITICAL) COURT (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/28438.htm)

April 12, 2001 -- Memo to all those Democratic types who've been screaming since last November about how terribly "politicized" the U.S. Supreme Court is - by which they mean that only conservatives behave in a partisan manner:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - who is now hearing, and will continue to hear - death-penalty cases, publicly weighed in on the issue Monday, calling for state moratoriums on capital punishment.

In a lecture on the importance of public-service law, Ginsburg said she was "glad to see" that Maryland was considering adopting a moratorium on executions - although the measure failed in the state legislature a few hours after her speech.

So much for objectively deciding such cases on the legal merits.

Justice Ginsburg staked out a blatantly political position, not a legal one, adding that she would have issued last-minute stays in any (emphasis added) capital case that came before her.


...


Click here to read the complete article (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/28438.htm)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Pure hypocrisy
Bush needs to remove Ginsburg,Kennedy,Souler and O'Connor from the bench
And replace them with Conservative Republicans so Roe v Wade can be overturned

Ginsburg always politicizes everything
If only she learned from Justice Thomas's example

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes, even in Texas is this move ongoing. I bet the only reason Justice Ginsburg stated this is McVeigh has exhausted all of his appeals.

[Warlady]

If they could all be like Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas we could all sleep peacefully knowing our Constitution would be safe from the Ginsbergs of the world.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ginzburg is a "judge" in name only. Calling her a "Supreme Court Justice" tortures the term.

She should be spinning her wheels over at NOW, where she could be bitching up a storm, but doing much less damage.

Achilles.

[oracle]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hollywood_Whit:
Pure hypocrisy
Bush needs to remove Ginsburg,Kennedy,Souler and O'Connor from the bench
And replace them with Conservative Republicans so Roe v Wade can be overturned

Ginsburg always politicizes everything
If only she learned from Justice Thomas's example<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Unfortunately, Bush can't remove them. Once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for life until they either quit, die, or are impeached by Congress.

[ThomasMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," which creates the constitutional basis for challenging the death penalty.

I think the death penalty constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Achilles, I have to disagree with you on this one. If you accept that the meaning of the Constitution's language is fixed, then the plain language of the Constitution must govern.

You refer to the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause", and state your impression that capital punishment is inherently cruel or unusual; therefore the basis for challenging the death penalty lies in the language of the Constitution itself.

Am I missing something so far, or is this the gist of it?

The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause appears in Amend. VIII.

Amend. VIII was part of the original Bill of Rights which went into effect in 1791, only four years after the original Constitution was ratified. The 10 Amendments were of a piece, all designed to protect the citizenry against excessive governmental power.

Along with the Amend. VIII Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause, Amend. V was offered and ratified at the same time. Most recall Amend. V for the clause stating that "[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

However, Amend. V opens with the statement, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, [without presentment or indictment of Grand Jury]". It further states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Both statements in Amend. V explicitly refer to capital punishment (i.e., "deprived of life") and establish procedural requirements before such punishment can take place.

Moving forward to Amend XIV. This was ratified in 1868, following the Civil War and its most remarkable feature was to extend some of the Constitution's limitations and prohibitions (which to that point had only constrained the federal government - not the States), to the State governments as well. Sec. 1 states that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...". Again, nearly 80 years later, the Constitution expressly refers to capital punishment and establishes a procedural safeguard, but this time with respect to State laws.

Finally, the history of punishment in this country speaks to the legal climate at the time the Constution and its amendments were ratified. Capital punishment was practiced before, during and after the Continental Congresses, and following the Civil War when Amend. XIV was ratified. Thus, the intent of the drafters could not possibly have been to exclude the death penalty outright. Had they wanted to do so, they would not have established procedural safeguards, they would have banned it outright.

Sorry, if you don't like the death penalty, you will have to pass a law against it.

images/icons/smile.gif

[Etaoin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Achilles:
Ginzburg is a "judge" in name only. Calling her a "Supreme Court Justice" tortures the term.

She should be spinning her wheels over at NOW, where she could be bitching up a storm, but doing much less damage.

Achilles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Hillary appoint her??? What elso would you expect? Then, the GOP Senators hadn't the gonads to block it.

[Etaoin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hollywood_Whit:
As soon as abortion is banned then so can the death penalty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't give up JUSTICE because abortion is finally stopped.