Wisconsin native.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC
"Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Kennedy Imposes His Morality
All you really need to read is this excerpt:
This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty
How can someone who is pro-life take issue with a ruling that refused to expand the death penalty?
You can't say you are pro-life when you want to give a jury the choice to take a life. In supporting the death penalty, you are making a judgment that it is acceptable to take a life under certain circumstances. And it is a short slide down the slippery slope to allow the death choice in other circumstances, i.e. abortion.
Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)
FACT: In a decent society there should be certain laws, like premeditated murder, that are deemed so heinous that you can expect to be killed if you can't obey them.
FACT: In a society that doesn't respect life, killing innocent victims (fetuses or murder victims) is less important than the lives of the killers. And yet many still confuse this with compassion.
The distinction between guilt and innocence is still a choice that it is acceptable for life to be taken in certain circumstances. Thus, you have an "I'm pro-life except for when A, B, and C happen" type of position.
I'd say that is a weak position to stand on when you are arguing against abortion.
The court is wrong on several counts. They should never have taken the case. It is about the state's right. A duly elected governor and legislature decided that the government should excute child rapists under certain circumstances. Many states have decided that the death penalty is appropriate and the states should be able to decide what crimes should the death penalty should apply. We could say the same about gay marriage. Since 48 other states say no to gay marriage, then CA and MA should not be allowed to have gay marriage. We can also make the case for concealed carry. They also should have let this stand because of the heinous of the crime. A 300 pound thug raped a 8 year old child, causing physical and mental problems foir the rest of this girl's life. He should be excuted for this. But don't worry Jay, now that he is off of death row, I suspect prison justice will be served and he will face the ultimate price, he will be excuted in prison, by the inmates, just like Jeffery Dahmer. Good riddance to this thug. Now that I think about it, maybe the prison justice system maybe better for this pervert.
I drew my conclusion that you supported taking a life in certain circumstances from this comment:
"Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)"
But, if you are against the death penalty in all circumstances then I do apologize for my hasty conclusion. If not, my point stands.
Dan,
The case involved a constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment, which the Supreme Court properly has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court previously held capital punishment for rape was cruel and unusual. In the instant case, they refused to make an exception for child rape.
I do agree this is a henious crime. But, would you reach the same conclusion that execution is deserved for the catholic preists that sexually asualted alter boys? "good riddance to those thugs?"
What else do you expect from the Lawgiver-In-Black who insists that it is SCOTUS' role to write the laws?
ReplyDeleteHow can someone who is pro-life take issue with a ruling that refused to expand the death penalty?
ReplyDeleteYou can't say you are pro-life when you want to give a jury the choice to take a life. In supporting the death penalty, you are making a judgment that it is acceptable to take a life under certain circumstances. And it is a short slide down the slippery slope to allow the death choice in other circumstances, i.e. abortion.
Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)
ReplyDeleteMaybe that will help you to understand.
Maybe not--but that's the difference.
FACT:
ReplyDeleteIn a decent society there should be certain laws, like premeditated murder, that are deemed so heinous that you can expect to be killed if you can't obey them.
FACT:
In a society that doesn't respect life, killing innocent victims (fetuses or murder victims) is less important than the lives of the killers. And yet many still confuse this with compassion.
Well Dad,
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between guilt and innocence is still a choice that it is acceptable for life to be taken in certain circumstances. Thus, you have an "I'm pro-life except for when A, B, and C happen" type of position.
I'd say that is a weak position to stand on when you are arguing against abortion.
Anon 6:24, I think you need to brush up on the difference between fact and opinion.
ReplyDeleteDad29: in HIS humble opinion ..
And in the opinion of the 48 states that do not impose this penalty. Significantly less humble, I'd say.
Thus, you have an "I'm pro-life except for when A, B, and C happen" type of position
ReplyDeleteNot only is that an assumption on your part, it is also inaccurate.
For a self-proclaimed lawyer, you leap to conclusions rather quickly.
Ah--but Jay--aside from the inane judgment rendered, it is the intent of the Founders that the several States will have their own penal laws.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I have not (nor will I) endorsed the Louisiana law. I disagree with the decision.
The court is wrong on several counts. They should never have taken the case. It is about the state's right. A duly elected governor and legislature decided that the government should excute child rapists under certain circumstances. Many states have decided that the death penalty is appropriate and the states should be able to decide what crimes should the death penalty should apply. We could say the same about gay marriage. Since 48 other states say no to gay marriage, then CA and MA should not be allowed to have gay marriage. We can also make the case for concealed carry.
ReplyDeleteThey also should have let this stand because of the heinous of the crime. A 300 pound thug raped a 8 year old child, causing physical and mental problems foir the rest of this girl's life. He should be excuted for this. But don't worry Jay, now that he is off of death row, I suspect prison justice will be served and he will face the ultimate price, he will be excuted in prison, by the inmates, just like Jeffery Dahmer. Good riddance to this thug. Now that I think about it, maybe the prison justice system maybe better for this pervert.
Dad 29,
ReplyDeleteI drew my conclusion that you supported taking a life in certain circumstances from this comment:
"Super Id, I would suggest that you fire up your super-brain and contemplate the difference between "innocent" (like the unborn) and "guilty" (like duly tried and convicted criminals.)"
But, if you are against the death penalty in all circumstances then I do apologize for my hasty conclusion. If not, my point stands.
Dan,
The case involved a constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment, which the Supreme Court properly has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court previously held capital punishment for rape was cruel and unusual. In the instant case, they refused to make an exception for child rape.
I do agree this is a henious crime. But, would you reach the same conclusion that execution is deserved for the catholic preists that sexually asualted alter boys? "good riddance to those thugs?"
Cheers