April 14, 2021

This Should be Interesting

by @ 5:39 pm. Filed under Judiciary

June 25, 2008

Death for a Child Rapist is Not “Cruel” or “Unusual” Punishment. States’ Rights Trounced Once Again.

by @ 5:22 pm. Filed under Judiciary

For background, read this article first. Then read La Shawn Barber’s post titled Supreme Court Rejects Death for Child Rapists. There she asks:

Do you believe child rapists should get the death penalty, whether or not they?ve killed the child?

I was going to post the following as a comment on her blog, but it started getting lengthy, so I figured I’d just post it here as a full post instead.

I teeter on whether I feel it’s OK to execute a child rapist. I guess if I had to vote on it I might vote execution to be OK, but then again I might not. But regardless, while I respect the US Supreme Court’s ruling, I feel it’s another stab against states’ rights. This ruling FIRST came down in 1977, when the US Supreme Court banned execution of rapists back then. The only difference now is that it has been reinforced in regards to when children are the victim.

I don’t find anything in the US Constitution that affirms death for child rapists is cruel. And honestly I think if given an opportunity, the 5 who voted against the death penalty today would outlaw it for all cases, if presented the right opportunity.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said:

The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,

I don’t find this talk of “proportional punishment” in the Constitution and death for a child rapist is not “cruel” or “unusual”. Proportional punishment for a rapist would be to have them raped as many times as they had raped someone else. It would have to be done in a manner that knowingly disturbed the rapist’s sensibilities, so they actually felt they were “raped” as they did to their victim. I’m sure our US Supreme Court would call that “cruel” and I’d have to agree. We could say someone getting a year in prison for stealing an apple is not necessarily “proportional”, but it’s certainly not “cruel” either. Making an example of a thief is not a bad thing. So this whole talk of “proportional punishment” is a bit lame. If I stole a US Supreme Court justice’s car and was caught, would that justice be OK with simply taking my personal car as punishment? Instead of having me tried, convicted and spending time in prison for theft? Especially since during the time in prison (and black mark on my record for the rest of my life) I’d likely lose way more in potential income than the price of either car. So you can tell I’m not buying the “proportional punishment” argument one bit.

These are continual slaps against states having the right to do much of anything.

In time, homosexuals will be granted so-called “marriage rights” by this court. But just because man’s government declares it does not mean God affirms it.

Luke 23:41, One thief on the cross understood the sentence he received from government was just for his deeds. And never was it said by Christ or His apostles that government bearing the sword against criminal activity was unjust, Romans 13. Certainly we all deserved eternal damnation because we all were sinners and praise God some of us have been granted God’s saving grace. But God allows the governments of man to bear a sword for when someone must be removed from this life for an orderly society. I think our allowing states to decide was best, but they have been overruled by the US Supreme Court and we have to respect that ruling while it is the law of the land.

I’m not sure what happened to the US Constitution in all of this, but obviously we moved from considering that document a long time ago.

Our own President said of the US Constitution:

Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god*****d piece of paper!”

So we have many in our government who don’t consider the Constitution much.

April 18, 2007

US Supreme Court Rules Some Babies Deserve Life. Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!

by @ 3:00 pm. Filed under Judiciary

I guess we’ll take what we can get.

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban on 5-4 Decision

Washington, DC ( — The Supreme Court has reversed a decision it handed down in 2000 and upheld a Congressional ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. The ruling indicated that the federal ban on the abortion procedure did not violate the so-called right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court and indicated that the abortion advocates who sued to overturn the ban “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases.”

President Bush signed the national partial-birth abortion ban into law in 2003 and abortion advocates took it to court in three separate lawsuits and federal courts in each case relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 and declared the ban unconstitutional.

Saying the “decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in the case and said the court should have followed its previous decision on the controversial abortions.

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined her in the dissent.

The ruling is the first major abortion case in which new Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have ruled, perhaps giving a clue as to their views on Roe itself.

As they did on the partial-birth abortion decision today, pro-life advocates hope the pair will join Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and a fifth justice in the future who would form a five-judge group giving it the majority on the high court for the first time since the landmark 1973 case.

A fifth judge is needed because Justice Kennedy supports Roe despite his joining the majority in the partial-birth abortion case.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a Las Cruces, New Mexico OBGYN who formerly did abortions in New York, says a partial-birth abortion is a three day long process and would never be a medical procedure a doctor would need to use to protect a woman’s health.

“The way you end a pregnancy to save a woman’s life is to deliver the (baby),” Levatino said. “If you wait three days to do a partial birth abortion, she’s going to end up in the morgue.”

Levatino said the health exception abortion advocates want is a “legal tactic” that has no basis in medical fact.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

I still await the day that this court admits they totally made up the “right” to kill babies at any stage in the womb. Baby killing is not protected by the US Constitution.

April 3, 2007

Climate Change Cultists Ripping Your Rights Away While You Slumber! US Supreme Court Demands CO2 Regulation. (Audio)

by @ 11:10 am. Filed under Audio, Judiciary

The cult of Albert Gore Jr. is having a direct impact on your life and nobody seems to care much about it. Your US Supreme Court has ruled, that via the EPA the government must regulate CO2 emissions in the United States of America. You probably have not thought much about this matter. About how a big lie is literally being leveraged to control your entire life. And I mean your entire life. Because the mess won’t stop with corporations and the increased prices you’ll have to pay and the longer hours you’ll have to work to pay those higher costs. Oh no, eventually the cult will be leveraged for one of the ultimate goals under the cult known as Liberalism, which is to control the womb. You might hear the Left claim that we Conservatives are the ones who attempt to control the womb by keeping babies from being murdered in it, but you will find it is the Left that really wants to control the womb via population control. Don’t believe me? Well have a look at this link, that was passed along to this blog by reader Julie.

Notice how the mind of the environmentalist works and compare that with the warning from the apostle Paul.

1 Timothy 4:1-11 (New King James Version)

1) Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

2) speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

3) forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;

5) for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6) If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.

7) But reject profane and old wives? fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.

8) For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.

9) This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance.

10) For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

11) These things command and teach.

The United Nations Population Fund claims to be helping people in the 3rd world, when actually they are doing all they can to kill poor people’s babies. Your babies are next, the Liberals just need to exact more power via government to deal with you.

You’ve got a demon inspired death cult looking you square in the face and many of you probably don’t even realize it.

And of course, since they don’t like anyone to oppose them, Julie also found that they are working to shut people like me up.

Champion of our legal system, Mark Levin sees what happened in the high court yesterday and has sounded the alarm for you to WAKE UP. Yesterday’s ruling was not a minor ruling, but a MAJOR one, that will impact you for the rest of your natural life. How long before the view that you are a pollutant and must be regulated is leveraged to control how many more polluting humans can be born in this country?

Of course Mark Levin uses strong language and he’s probably the first to tell you he’s no saint, but listen to what the man has to say. He’s not the type to crack out a Bible and read you verses, but my view and his view show that no matter what level you view yesterday’s ruling from, it was a bad thing to see it happen. Levin speaks about freedom, I speak about cultists running your life. Either way, you lost and didn’t even know it.

Hear Mark Levin using the audio link below.
Mark Levin on yesterday’s SCOTUS CO2 ruling – ASF Audio (Size: 2.05 MB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the media file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

January 16, 2007

More Proof That Terrorists Should Not be Tried in US Courts. Millennium Bomber Gets a Break From 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

by @ 5:57 pm. Filed under Judiciary, Terrorism and War

Once again the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stabs America in the back. While some praised the court for their decision regarding the Mt. Soledad Cross, I knew they’d let America down again and it only took them a day. They’ve overturned one of the convictions against the millennium bomber, who was caught before he killed who knows how many people at LAX.

One of nine ‘Millennium plot’ convictions overturned

— A federal appeals court overturned one of the nine criminal convictions today of an Algerian who tried to smuggle explosives from Canada into the United States and admitted plotting with al Qaeda to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the New Year’s celebration in 1999.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also set aside Ahmed Ressam’s 22-year prison sentence and ordered a federal judge to reconsider it. Although the sentence included a mandatory 10-year term for carrying explosives while lying to customs officials — the conviction the court overturned — the ruling does not require the judge to reduce Ressam’s sentence.

Ressam, now 39, was arrested Dec. 14, 1999, after U.S. Customs inspectors at a ferry terminal in Port Angeles, Wash., searched his rental car and found powerful explosives and timing devices. He was convicted in April 2001 of international terrorism and other charges in Los Angeles, where the case was transferred because of publicity in the Seattle area.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court said the jury had not been asked to decide a key element of the crime — whether carrying explosives aided Ressam in lying to the customs agents. “There is no evidence that the explosives emboldened Ressam to lie or that he used them to protect himself or intimidate others,” Judge Pamela Rymer said in the majority opinion.

The court told Coughenour to reconsider the sentence in light of the overturned conviction and recent rulings that have given federal judges more leeway in sentencing.

Those nuts are debating if a terrorist was emboldened to lie because he had explosives. Isn’t it just insane that they would even entertain such a matter? This is why terrorists and their allies cannot be tried in US courts. Our judiciary is just so messed up, that terrorists and their allies can shop for judges until they get a sentence reduced to nothing. On top of the fact they are very unlikely to be sentenced to death, which is what they deserve.

Regardless of the information obtained from that terrorist, he should have been swinging by the neck way before Saddam and his buddies got it! Instead he finds weasel lawyers, to help him possibly walk out of prison one day. He was a trained al Qaeda terrorists for crying out loud!

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

69 queries. 0.263 seconds