1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Can't execute child rapists

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Songbird, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    But who defines the big difference? You? Me?

    What about armed robbery? I'd argue it's awfully traumatizing, maybe for life, to have a gun shoved in your face. Should we execute them too?

    But keep on trying to deny criminals Constitutional protections. After all, when you break the law, you forfeit any right to be treated with decency and fairness.
     
  2. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    Exactly. And this situation falls directly under State's Rights in said Constitution. The will of the people in that state and their elected officials chose death for child rapists. That decision is protected under the Constitution.

    Thus the four who agreed with the state on this issue are actually strict constitutionalists. The five others, despite some being selected by Republicans, are nothing more than S-P puppets, who try their hardest to wave a magic wand over the country and change laws as they see fit.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and I get to watch another state be stripped of its right to govern itself how it sees fit under the Constitution.
     
  3. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I think RedSmith has an idea. Instead of a Supreme Court, we should have an American Idol type show with sexy lawyers and dancers. The public can text in their verdicts.

    If we charge 95 cents a vote, we'll be out of debt soon and can subsidize oil down to 25 cents a gallon.

    I'm sure that if we have reality TV back in the Ben Franklin days, the framers would have never bothered with the judges thing.

    I expect royalties, dammit.
     
  4. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member


    Well I guess we know where Ace stands on State's Rights issues.

    Let me guess, you are in the Obama mold of I know what's best for you and yours, so just shut the F up and take it?
     
  5. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    No. Not exactly. You said in the previous post that their decisions never reflect the will of the people. Which has nothing to do with it at all.

    What about Brown v. Board of Education? Was that a trampling of states rights? Because I'm willing to bet if you went by the will of the people, there's a handful of states that would STILL have segregated schools. Well, legally segregated, anyway.
     
  6. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    You are absolutely right. There are times when the SCOTUS gets it right.

    There are times when State's Rights can and should be tossed out the window. What you all seem to be saying is that in this case they made the right decision.

    I disagree. Just as I did on the last eminent domain ruling.
     
  7. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    Speaking of states rights... is eminent domain a state's rights issue or a federal issue?

    I seem to remember a Supreme Court case last year (or the year before) from Connecticut where the Court ruled that the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in telling local governments what properties they can take in the name of redevelopment.

    The conservatives are up in arms over these "activist" judges for allowing homes to be taken when all the judges did was say "we have no right telling a local government the best uses for its land"
     
  8. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    That's true, unless it's one of their own homes. Just ask Mr. Souter.

    Man I so would have stayed at that hotel if it had passed.
     
  9. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    But now it just becomes a matter of was this ruling right or wrong based on what you or I think, not whether it was a trampling of states rights. And the argument you seem to present is that because you disagree with the decision, it was therefore automatically the wrong decision and therefore automatically a trampling of states rights.
     
  10. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    So the Court should stay out of the way of state/local government if it wants to fry a criminal, but interfere when it comes to protecting the citizens from the metholds a state/local government wants to use to revitalize its economy?
     
  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I am for the rights of states and the rights of the people and the rights of the federal government.

    I personally oppose the death penalty, but am willing to get angry at murderers and rapists.
     
  12. gingerbread

    gingerbread Well-Known Member

    Well, considering Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling, you might want to reconsider that off-base assumption.

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252008/news/nationalnews/obama__supreme_court_off_base_117163.htm

    Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of child rapists.
    "I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution."
    The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12, saying it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page