Left wing pinkoes control america

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The victim is better off with this attacker being alive. They are more likely to recover faster. That's what's really important.

Can you cite evidence of this? Say, a study?

Re:OP, I'm pretty much indifferent. Normally I oppose the DP because we've whacked too many people only to find out we had the wrong person, but that doesn't seem as likely with kiddie-rapers who leave their victims alive. It's not really called for, but it's not like a child-raper will ever have a normal life anyway so it's NBD. I bet they're at the absolute bottom of the prison hierarchy, death might be kinder. So I give this ruling a vague based on principle.

[Winston]

If we were to kill everyone who doesn't have a normal life, we'd be fairly busy for a while.

[Elok]

I wasn't advocating that we do so, just pointing out that between getting the chair or getting sodomized with a rusty shank by a burly inmate while the guards look on and laugh every week for the rest of my considerably shortened natural life...the chair sounds good.

[Winston]

I know you didn't, just pointing out that when it comes down to it, not very many of us can truly be considered normal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont know whether thats true or not. In any case, I'm not arguing against judicial review (which is what Marbury V Madison formalized) or whether the constitution trumps state laws (it does). I'm arguing that in cases where there are no clear definitions of constitutional terms based upon prior laws enacted by a legislative body i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment" that the supremes should not even hear the case. In this decision, the supremes choice was between affirming the state law or writing their own based upon their own whims, which is what they have done.

Translation: I am arguing against judicial review. Or Spencer has no clue what judicial review is.

What point is there to judicial review if it isn't to decide when there aren't clear definitions in the text?!! If there were clear definitions, why would we need judicial review? Do you think politicians realize a Constitutional mandate and purposefully pass laws in contravention? Or do you think perhaps they think the Constitution allows their reading of it?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


So if the Legislature passes a law saying that the punishment for jaywalking should be death by slow torture, then you -- as Justice SpencerH -- would be okay with that?

Whether I, as an individual or as a Justice, am OK with something or not should be irrelevant.

[Zkribbler]

Let me rephrase:

If the Leglislature passed such a statute, if it was challenged on the grounds of being a cruel and unusual punishment, and if the case came before you, would your decision be to uphold the statute as not being cruel and unusual or would you strike the statute down as being unconstitutional?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Translation: I am arguing against judicial review. Or Spencer has no clue what judicial review is.

What point is there to judicial review if it isn't to decide when there aren't clear definitions in the text?!! If there were clear definitions, why would we need judicial review? Do you think politicians realize a Constitutional mandate and purposefully pass laws in contravention? Or do you think perhaps they think the Constitution allows their reading of it?

I'm quite clear on the meaning of judicial review thanks. Are you sure you're a lawyer? OTOH, perhaps your inability to comprehend simple sentences is proof of that.

Even Agathon, who is an unlikely ally, understood my objection.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Let me rephrase:

If the Leglislature passed such a statute, if it was challenged on the grounds of being a cruel and unusual punishment, and if the case came before you, would your decision be to uphold the statute as not being cruel and unusual or would you strike the statute down as being unconstitutional?

As I inferred, I would not take the case. Without precedent or some other legal measure, how am I to define "cruel and unusual aside" from my personal whim.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm quite clear on the meaning of judicial review thanks. Are you sure you're a lawyer? OTOH, perhaps your inability to comprehend simple sentences is proof of that.

Even Agathon, who is an unlikely ally, understood my objection.

No you aren't clear on the meaning of judicial review. If judicial review isn't going to be used when there aren't clear definitions, its basically useless.

People who are trained as lawyers, even conservatives, actually do know Constitutional jurisprudence and, of course, would never say the Supreme Court has no business in interpreting what the 8th Amendment actually means. The dissent, after all, argues on what the cruel and unusual punishment clause means, not that the court shouldn't be able to decide on it because there aren't any clear definitions.

As for Agathon; he also said a good case can be made that the entire institution of the death penalty can be considered "cruel and unusual" based upon his reading of it. Based on his reading, I'm inclined to agree.

Basically, you are making an argument against judicial review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

Although judicial review has now become an established part of constitutional law in the United States, there are some who disagree with the doctrine, or believe that it is unconstitutional. This is generally based on two grounds. First, the power of constitutional review is not specifically delegated to the Supreme Court anywhere in the Constitution. Along with this, the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that any power that is not delegated by the constitution is reserved to the states, or people. Secondly, it is the states alone that have the power to create this set of laws for the federal government follow, logically it is the states alone that have the power to interpret the meaning of these laws. Allowing the federal government to conduct judicial review allows them to interpret their own restrictions as they see fit, with no consent to the originating power.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know and we know that isn't what he said at all. He merely said that it ain't as bad as getting killed, so don't be putting words into someone else's mouth.

Perhaps you should look into the word "if" and stop putting words in my mouth.

(If you need me to explain it to you in further detail, feel free to ask. )

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lorizael


You concede, then. Excellent.

Not so bad. I was wait for a 'people who think child rapists ought to get the DP should be shot' response.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
Perhaps you should look into the word "if" and stop putting words in my mouth.

Please. Why ask if he wants to argue that it doesn't impact the child's psyche when it seemed fairly obvious that wasn't even close to what his objection was.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Winston
Maybe you should improve on your overall attitude before you start soliciting facts - or really anything beyond a casual, disinterested "Oh hi, Aeson".

You're so clueless. I wasn't soliciting facts, I was mocking you. (And since you need the help figuring this out, I'm mocking you again here too!)

[Imran Siddiqui]

From Federalist 78:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.