|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
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):
I guess that's what it means to be a strict contstructionist! DNA is not evidence in the constitution.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Thomas alway concurs with Scalia, like his little beotch.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by 99SESPORT:
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!! 
You have to THINK for a minute. Similarily in the sense of the cases being similar isn't what this is about, it's about the CONSTITUTION. Equal protection as described in the constitution should have never allowed congress to make their decision for ONE person. Their decision applies to NOONE else, except this one person. So in theory, anybody that is in the position to be legally "killed" no matter why (cases like this, abortions, death row inmates), would have the same right to have congress decide. Congress can't go and decide every right to life case, and they should have realized that and not made their stupid decision.
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: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
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):
I guess that's what it means to be a strict contstructionist! DNA is not evidence in the constitution.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Thomas alway concurs with Scalia, like his little beotch.
Does that make you PDXSVT's little beotch?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
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?
Maybe, but that's not what Kremit wrote...at least that I can see... In fact, he made no mention of DNA or new evidence showing innocence...
He said:
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.
Instead, he makes it seem like the prof is wanting to see this legislation upheld so that he can fight for death row inmates who have been accused and found guilty of committing heinous crimes, regardless of their innocence or guilt. Our system is, unfortunately, not perfect. If it were, not one guilty would be found innocent, and not one innocent would be found guilty.
Regarding this new legislation, which I have not read, I see, from what Kremit wrote, a professor who is simply interested in showing that if a disabled person has a right to life, then so does an inmate. Maybe Kremit should explain what the professor meant to a deeper degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Thought that last post explained it pretty well. I'll try to put it simpler. The professor, although caring about wrongfully accused inmates, is just wanting to prove to congress that they are wrong in what they did. Doesn't matter if he did or didn't care about inmates. It is not about whether someone should or shouldn't live, whether someone commited a crime or didn't, or whether abortion is right or wrong. It is about LAW, about the CONSTITUTION. The point is that congress has gone against the constitution, thus opening a door that they shouldn't have opened. We have the court system for these things. It's not congress's place to do what they did. They do have checks and balances, but is not a check/balance. Congress does not interpret the constitution or laws, our judicial system does. And even if they did, they just went against the constitution. This was just a move by mainly conservatives to follow their own opinion and maybe try to get votes.
What I was saying about the professor is he would just want to show Congress they screwed up. Got it?
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:
Thought that last post explained it pretty well.
Sorry,  I replied to the earlier post without reading this one...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Does anyone really believe that this case is about anything more than political pandering to the conservative right?
GOP MEMO SAYS ISSUE OFFERS POLITICAL REWARDS
By The Washington Post
WASHINGTON â?? Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.
The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.
"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Does anyone really believe that this case is about anything more than political pandering to the conservative right?
Yeap. Even though if I voted, I'd probably vote replubican or maybe some third party, I agree. It's stupid they do that. It'd be nice to see our government doing their job rather than trying to get votes.
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: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Does anyone really believe that this case is about anything more than political pandering to the conservative right?
What's wrong with that? I'm still yet to get an answer to this question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 609
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 609 |
Okay, now the story's on Fox, not just NewsMax. And don't give me that BS about Fox being right-wing.  ============================================= Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9 a.m. EST
Terri's Former Nurse Accuses Michael SchiavoFrom April 1995 to August 1996, Carla Sauer Iyer was one of Terri Schiavo's caretakers at Palm Garden in Largo, Fla. This morning on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" program, she gave a frightening account of Michael Schiavo's actions and words, and also a hopeful description of Terri Schiavo's condition at that time. Ms. Iyer said that Terri could: -Interact with staff. -Laugh. -Talk - saying words like "mommy," "help me" and "hi." -Let you know if she was in pain. -React reflexively on command. Interviewer Steve Doocey asked Carla why, in her opinion, Michael Schiavo was not telling people this. She answered that she believes "he wants her to die." Doocey then revealed that Carla was fired from the care facility because of a disagreement with Michael Schiavo in an incident where she claims he injected Terri with insulin. Ms. Iyer said that after Michael visited Terri one day for about 20 minutes, with the door shut, she went in after he left and saw Terri sweating, lethargic and "crying hysterically." Carla checked Terri's blood sugar, and it was barely reading on the glucometer. She also saw a vial of "insulin concealed in the trash bin." (emphasis mine) According to Carla, there were needle marks underneath Terri's breast, under her arms and near her groin. Carla talked to the police and then went to the director of nursing, who was very upset that Carla had gone to the police. She doesn't think Michael Schiavo was a caring husband and claimed to Fox News that he refused to send Terri to rehabilitation of any kind. Doocey then said that he had heard a story from another nurse who tried to feed Terri, and when Michael Schiavo found out about it, in Doocey's words, "it all hit the fan." Carla concurred, saying that Terri could be fed by mouth - jello and pudding, etc. - without aspirating, but that when Michael found out Terri was being fed by mouth, he told the nurses he was going to get them fired. Doocey then asked Carla why she was coming forward now. She answered that she wanted "to let the truth be known. I was one of the very few people who was able to see Terri. She would interact with all the visitors. ... I want everyone to see Terri." ============================================= Nope, nothing suspicious there.  Move along... Marty
98 SVT, Black, No. 786, May 7, 1997.
K&N, MSDS, Xcal2, Tint, Antennas, Big Gulp(R)-Sized Cupholder, Rear Dome Lt., Koni/Eibach, DMD, Pre-98 Sails, Brake Cooling Deflectors, Sidemarkers, Etc.
147K+ Miles
"Get the Door - It's GrooveNerd!"
|
|
|
|
|
