|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Wow, what does that prove? You can take random quotes from anyones life over 20 years and come up with anything you want!
You consider statements like those to be typical of what any typical person might say? No extremism at all is evident to you?
No I do not consider them typical. Most are outrageous. However, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the debate between you and I. Even if the guy is completely nuts, I dont see how that effects congress satisfying the religious right.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Even if the guy is completely nuts, I dont see how that effects congress satisfying the religious right.
I agree with that... I was just taking umbrage with what I thought was your defense of Randall Terry's character. Sorry if I misunderstood.
But of course I still have to disagree about the non-involvement of religious fringe groups in this issue.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Well the federal judge heard the case this morning... Quote:
U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old womanâ??s parents had not established a â??substantial likelihood of successâ? at trial on the merits of their arguments.
Whittemore wrote that Terri Schiavoâ??s â??life and liberty interestsâ? had been protected by Florida courts. Despite â??these difficult and time strained circumstances,â? he wrote, â??this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.â?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by Davo:
What does passing a bill for the religious right have to do with this thread?
Originally posted by Davo:
There is nothing wrong with doing something to please your base, right?
Looks like you answered your own question.
Eh, I thought Corbett was going a different direction with his post, so I said that. Regardless, I don't see how I answered my own question here.
Last edited by Davo; 03/22/05 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Man I'm a n00b lately. 
(I double-posted again.)
Last edited by Davo; 03/22/05 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
I don't see how I answered my own question here.
That was a little snide on my part, sorry.
But what I meant was religious right = base. Therefore "doing something for their base" is doing something for the religious right.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
We talked about this in class today.
Don't know if this has been covered but,
If the guys in congress that voted against just didn't vote, then it wouldn't have passed. 218 people had to vote, a 2/3 majority was needed, which was reached with 202 votes for it. If the 53 that voted against hadn't voted, the requirement for the number of members voting wouldn't have been reached and it wouldn't have passed.
The conressional decision goes completely against the 14th amendment equal protection thing. The only thing that has stood that goes against equal protections is the draft regarding males and females.
My professor, a lawyer, sorta wants it to be upheld by the court so he can then start filing suits for all prisoners in georgia on death row as they seemingly also would have a right to life. He would do it pro bono just to prove to congress how stupid their decision was.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
My professor, a lawyer, sorta wants it to be upheld by the court so he can then start filing suits for all prisoners in georgia on death row as they seemingly also would have a right to life. He would do it pro bono just to prove to congress how stupid their decision was.
Yeah, same difference!! Does anybody else see the similarity?
One lady has medical problems, the only thing keeping her alive is what? Oh yeah, food.
So many people are on death row? Why? Oh, that's right, they committed a crime of heinous proportion.
Similarity is abundant!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by 99SESPORT:
One lady has medical problems, the only thing keeping her alive is what? Oh yeah, food.
Ironic, not eating is how she [censored] up her brain in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Here you go, 99SE, since you're an analyst, do you think Scalia is here saying that even when NEW DNA evidence could prove after a conviction that a guy on death row is really innocent, he still has NO right to have his death sentance reconsidered? From Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993):
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
"We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person
who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later
alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent."
I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the
Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is
no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were
enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial
consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward
after conviction."
Do you think this is what Kremit's prof is thinking about?
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
