 | | |
| Rob February 15, 2006 04:27 PM PST  What, besides other Muslims and their barbaric beliefs, DOESN'T offend Muslims these days?! I sort of like the following "take" on the issue: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060204 It's about time the civilized world, including the appeasers at the State Department and the hypocrites in the MSM, stood up to these purveyors of hate and death to let THEM know just how "offended" we are by the "Religion of Peace" -- that is anything BUT! | ||
| ||
| | |
| Mike's America February 14, 2006 10:38 PM PST Happy Valentines Day Skye! Enjoy it while you can. Muslims are offended by the holiday and demanding we cease observing it or else. | ||
| ||
| | |
| Rob February 8, 2006 07:38 AM PST "And yes, if the State Supreme Court overturns a conviction for some reason, that does mean the execution is off. The Executive can halt a criminal's execution, but cannot carry one out." I believe the execution would only be "off" until the Executive branch appealed the State Supreme Court decision to the SCOTUS -- and they'd be back to where they were last time, except now the "States' Rights" issue would be resolved but the Executive Branch would be looking for a SCOTUS ruling that would overturn the State Supreme Court decision (on whatever grounds they disagreed with the State court). There's plenty of "precedent" for that -- and Alito said he respects precedents established by prior SCOTUS rulings. Hopefully the State Supreme Court will "get it right" and a convicted murderer won't "skate" (for much longer) and the case will never make it back to the SCOTUS. | ||
| ||
| | |
| JM February 7, 2006 09:52 PM PST >Alito's vote in this case >aligned him with the 5 most >liberal justices Alito voted correctly for the right reasons; the Libs on the SCOTUS voted correctly for the wrong reasons. It does happen, from time to time. :) >If the State Supreme Court >decides this person shouldn't >be executed, does their >decision trump the State >Administration -- >theoretically their co-equal >branch of government? It's only the method of execution that's being reconsidered by the State Supreme Court. He was fairly tried and sentenced to death, and the sentence will be carried out -- no one disputes that. The "argument" over whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" is ridiculous, but the question was raised properly and must be considered. And yes, if the State Supreme Court overturns a conviction for some reason, that does mean the execution is off. The Executive can halt a criminal's execution, but cannot carry one out. | ||
| ||
| | |
| Rob February 6, 2006 05:29 PM PST Oops! I never did quite accept that "Patience is a virtue" concept! ;-) | ||
| ||
| | |
| Rob February 6, 2006 01:13 PM PST "No. Alito was right. Can't put the man to death while the State Supreme Court is still considering how to do it. The federal government doesn't have the right to bypass the State court in the matter. I think Alito is more of a strict originalist and States' rights advocate than even I hoped for." JM -- 2/4/06 @ 2:22 PM I hear you Joe, and I welcome a "States' Rights" jurist on the High Court; however, the ironic thing is, Alito's vote in this case aligned him with the 5 most liberal justices and in opposition to the 3 solid conservatives -- Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. I'm quite certain the other 5 justices who voted to stay the execution were NOT motivated by a "States' Rights" philosophy. It's funny how these things work out sometimes -- "...strange bedfellows..." and all that! As for the States' Rights issue as pertains to this case, maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be, but wasn't the problem because one branch of the State Government (Administrative, in charge of Prisons and, hence, executions and the Judicial -- ultimately the State Supreme Court) weren't in agreement? The Administrative branch was prepared to go ahead with the execution and the State Supreme Court was "still considering" the issue. If the State Supreme Court decides this person shouldn't be executed, does their decision trump the State Administration -- theoretically their co-equal branch of government? If there isn't agreement between the two, doesn't the matter end up back at the SCOTUS anyway? How would you expect Alito to vote in that case? I'm just wondering because I really don't know and because I can see where it could come down to two conflicting "conservative" values. | ||
| ||
| | |
| Rob February 6, 2006 01:11 PM PST "No. Alito was right. Can't put the man to death while the State Supreme Court is still considering how to do it. The federal government doesn't have the right to bypass the State court in the matter. I think Alito is more of a strict originalist and States' rights advocate than even I hoped for." JM -- 2/4/06 @ 2:22 PM I hear you Joe, and I welcome a "States' Rights" jurist on the High Court; however, the ironic thing is, Alito's vote in this case aligned him with the 5 most liberal justices and in opposition to the 3 solid conservatives -- Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. I'm quite certain the other 5 justices who voted to stay the execution were NOT motivated by a "States' Rights" philosophy. It's funny how these things work out sometimes -- "...strange bedfellows..." and all that! As for the States' Rights issue as pertains to this case, maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be, but wasn't the problem because one branch of the State Government (Administrative, in charge of Prisons and, hence, executions and the Judicial -- ultimately the State Supreme Court) weren't in agreement? The Administrative branch was prepared to go ahead with the execution and the State Supreme Court was "still considering" the issue. If the State Supreme Court decides this person shouldn't be executed, does their decision trump the State Administration -- theoretically their co-equal branch of government? If there isn't agreement between the two, doesn't the matter end up back at the SCOTUS anyway? How would you expect Alito to vote in that case? I'm just wondering because I really don't know and because I can see where it could come down to two conflicting "conservative" values. | ||
| ||
| | |
| JM February 4, 2006 02:22 PM PST >let's just chalk that one up to >a "rookie mistake" on his >first day in the big leagues No. Alito was right. Can't put the man to death while the State Supreme Court is still considering how to do it. The federal government doesn't have the right to bypass the State court in the matter. I think Alito is more of a strict originalist and States' rights advocate than even I hoped for. | ||
| ||
| | |
| Mike\'s America February 3, 2006 10:18 PM PST Now that the Democrats have set a totally political standard, not one based on qualifications, for confirming nominees, I think we should apply it retroactively to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg. If the Senate had any guts (and we all know that they do NOT) they would put up two resolutions on whether each Justice had the support of the Senate to remain based solely on their political background. It wouldn't have any constitutional force, but would set down a marker to the Dems. | ||
| ||
| | |
| Rob February 2, 2006 07:14 PM PST Notwithstanding Justice Alito's voting with the liberal majority -- and in opposition to Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas -- in the first case (the Missouri death penalty appeal) that came before him (let's just chalk that one up to a "rookie mistake" on his first day in the big leagues), GWB appointed a moderately conservative, eminently-qualified jurist to the High Court in Sam Alito. Now, isn't it about time for Justice John Paul Stevens (the oldest member on the SCOTUS) and Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg (prior health problems) to think about stepping down? I wish neither of them ill health or other hardships, but it would be most delightful if Dubya could put his mark on the Court for a long, LONG time with two more solid, young, conservative (constructionist, not activist) appointees during these final 3 years in office. That would thwart liberal efforts to achieve through the courts what they could NEVER achieve legislatively or administratively because their causes lack popular support -- and they would actually have to change so they can start winning elections again. It could be decades before they will ever regain influence in Washington! Oh yeah -- we'd ALL have a reason to do the "happy dance" then!! | ||
| ||
| | |
| The Troll February 1, 2006 02:07 AM PST Comfirmation Iran has nuke to test post on my blog!! I love a snoopy dance too "go Alito" | ||
| ||
| | |
| Wordsmith February 1, 2006 01:43 AM PST I love the Snoopy dance! | ||
| ||
| | |
| dcat/still at it ® January 31, 2006 10:17 PM PST BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! | ||
| ||
Â
| Leave a Comment: |
| Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry |
| << January 2006 >> | ||||||
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
| 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
by David Horowitz
| BLOGDRIVE |
| TEMPLATES |
