|
Post by bernard on Jun 29, 2015 12:27:20 GMT -6
Check this out…
"Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out… " Lol #1. Consequently "To succeed on an eighth amendment method-of-execution claim, a prisoner must establish that the method creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain and that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives."
Hilarious. Who gets this guy dressed in the morning?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 29, 2015 16:10:53 GMT -6
He makes stuff up, bonehead he is.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jun 29, 2015 16:48:34 GMT -6
An adjunct philosophy professor at a university famous for its veterinary school?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 29, 2015 20:32:50 GMT -6
An adjunct philosophy professor at a university famous for its veterinary school? That would be very strange.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 30, 2015 10:50:54 GMT -6
What I find is laughably insane is " Obama, Tony Abott, David Cameron etc who signed up for TPP , should all be tried for treason.
Guess, we all need to go back to cavemen, start all over to get things right at this point in time !!!
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 30, 2015 11:31:06 GMT -6
What I find is laughably insane is " Obama, Tony Abott, David Cameron etc who signed up for TPP , should all be tried for treason. Wow. When did Alito say that?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 30, 2015 11:46:40 GMT -6
He did'nt just pointing out we have bigger problems than him..Alito is just a pimple on our butts.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 30, 2015 11:59:44 GMT -6
The Supreme Court just seems like a legislature these days. Even when I like their decisions, I rarely like their reasoning. It seems to have nothing to do with interpreting the constitution and everything to do with their own personal political opinions.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 30, 2015 12:03:39 GMT -6
The Supreme Court just seems like a legislature these days. Even when I like their decisions, I rarely like their reasoning. It seems to have nothing to do with interpreting the constitution and everything to do with their own personal political opinions. Personal opinions &"agenda"
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jul 11, 2015 10:49:21 GMT -6
Why is the reasoning poor?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 31, 2015 18:27:57 GMT -6
Why is the reasoning poor? Probably because Alito was selected for his political stance not for his ability to reason.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 11, 2015 19:01:36 GMT -6
Why is the reasoning poor? Probably because Alito was selected for his political stance not for his ability to reason. Why do you think that there is some error with the reasoning. It is clear and accurate.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Aug 12, 2015 21:19:11 GMT -6
Probably because Alito was selected for his political stance not for his ability to reason. Why do you think that there is some error with the reasoning. It is clear and accurate. It is clear, yes. And on reflection the stuff after the first sentence isn't that bad. But the first sentence is extremely broad and carelessly formulated. It effectively says that if x is constitutional, then there must be some constitutional way of carrying it out. But that has never been a part of constitutional jurisprudence. E.g., suppose there is no way to prosecute the gangster Jimmy TwoTimes without conducting a warrantless search to collect evidence from his home and business and raiding his attorney's office in the middle of the night. Then, since Alito said that if something is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out, you might think that it's ok to do these warrantless searches. It's constitutional, after all, to prosecute crooks. So there must be some way of doing it, and this is the only way... The court has never accepted this kind of reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 28, 2015 19:09:22 GMT -6
The court has accepted whatever type of goofy reasoning gets the usurping justices to the conclusion that they want at the moment. Your example is irrelevant. It is a specific case that is dependent on detailed circumstances. It is simply absurd to claim that Alito is wrong. When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they could have forbidden the death penalty. They did not because the death penalty was already in effect and the idiots opposed to it had not yet gotten close to taking over the asylum
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 3, 2015 15:09:50 GMT -6
The court has accepted whatever type of goofy reasoning gets the usurping justices to the conclusion that they want at the moment. As long as you agree that the reasoning was goofy, that's all I was claiming. That's exactly why it's relevant. Alito thinks that if X is constitutional, there must be a constitutional way to do X in each and every circumstance. That doesn't follow logically, it isn't consistent with western jurisprudence, it isn't consistent with constitutional scholarship and it isn't consistent with constitutional precedent. If you like, I will agree that the DP is constitutional for the sake of argument. The problem with Alito's argument is that EVEN IF the DP is constitutional, that doesn't mean there will be a constitutional way of carrying it out in each and every circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 6, 2015 1:27:11 GMT -6
EVEN IF the DP is constitutional I've seen no mention of the death penalty in our Constitution. that doesn't mean there will be a constitutional way of carrying it out in each and every circumstance. I haven't seen any written instructions in the Constitution on how to properly hang a condemned criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 6, 2015 18:49:19 GMT -6
No. The Constitution directly addresses, and thus authorizes, the DP in the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 6, 2015 23:19:06 GMT -6
No. The Constitution directly addresses, and thus authorizes, the DP in the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. You got me there, Bob; I completely forgot about that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 7, 2015 14:31:33 GMT -6
EVEN IF the DP is constitutional I've seen no mention of the death penalty in our Constitution. You should look harder. It's there. I haven't seen any written instructions in the Constitution on how to properly hang a condemned criminal. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. So that prohibits, among other things, hanging the criminal by the neck until unconscious, then waking him up, and repeating that over and over. That's probably cruel and certainly unusual.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 7, 2015 14:34:26 GMT -6
No. The Constitution directly addresses, and thus authorizes, the DP in the Fifth Amendment. I can see why you think that, but that is incorrect. The constitution says, in effect: 1. No punishment (for example the death penalty) without due process. 2. No punishments that are cruel and/or unusual. Whether the death penalty is constitutional therefore depends not ONLY on whether due process was observed but ALSO on whether it is cruel and unusual by the evolving standards of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 26, 2015 8:49:32 GMT -6
I can see why you think that, but that is incorrect. The constitution says, in effect: 1. No punishment (for example the death penalty) without due process. 2. No punishments that are cruel and/or unusual. Whether the death penalty is constitutional therefore depends not ONLY on whether due process was observed but ALSO on whether it is cruel and unusual by the evolving standards of the time. If standards of the time are evolving, then there is no need for the Supreme Court to make a decision. The people of the various states can easily take care of such "evolution".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 1, 2015 15:19:42 GMT -6
I can see why you think that, but that is incorrect. The constitution says, in effect: 1. No punishment (for example the death penalty) without due process. 2. No punishments that are cruel and/or unusual. Whether the death penalty is constitutional therefore depends not ONLY on whether due process was observed but ALSO on whether it is cruel and unusual by the evolving standards of the time. If standards of the time are evolving, then there is no need for the Supreme Court to make a decision. The people of the various states can easily take care of such "evolution". The “evolving standards of decency” doctrine has become a central part of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. You sound as if you are unaware of that.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2015 15:37:33 GMT -6
I can see why you think that, but that is incorrect. The constitution says, in effect: 1. No punishment (for example the death penalty) without due process. 2. No punishments that are cruel and/or unusual. Whether the death penalty is constitutional therefore depends not ONLY on whether due process was observed but ALSO on whether it is cruel and unusual by the evolving standards of the time. No DP w/out due process (1) No punishment that is cruel & unusual (2) Ok the jerk had due process sometime many times over many yrs & appeals soooo By evolving standards of the time? Then what method goes with the times now?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 2, 2015 7:29:24 GMT -6
I can see why you think that, but that is incorrect. The constitution says, in effect: 1. No punishment (for example the death penalty) without due process. 2. No punishments that are cruel and/or unusual. Whether the death penalty is constitutional therefore depends not ONLY on whether due process was observed but ALSO on whether it is cruel and unusual by the evolving standards of the time. No DP w/out due process (1) No punishment that is cruel & unusual (2) Ok the jerk had due process sometime many times over many yrs & appeals soooo By evolving standards of the time? Then what method goes with the times now? It doesn't matter to the point at hand. The point is that (1) is not a positive license for the death penalty. (1) merely places restrictions on whatever punishments are constitutional according to (2).
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Dec 30, 2015 15:21:04 GMT -6
If standards of the time are evolving, then there is no need for the Supreme Court to make a decision. The people of the various states can easily take care of such "evolution". The “evolving standards of decency” doctrine has become a central part of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. You sound as if you are unaware of that. Fraud is not jurisprudence, and I am aware that judges sometimes indulge in fraud to suit their personal whims, as there are no consequences to them and they could not care less about the people who are actually harmed.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2016 22:16:32 GMT -6
The “evolving standards of decency” doctrine has become a central part of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. You sound as if you are unaware of that. Fraud is not jurisprudence, and I am aware that judges sometimes indulge in fraud to suit their personal whims, as there are no consequences to them and they could not care less about the people who are actually harmed. You must tell me why you think the ESOD doctrine is a piece of legalistic fraud. It has generally been respected by both conservative and liberal judges, so your usual partisan bias doesn't explain why you would object to it. In case you need a refresher, terms in the constitution such as "cruel" and "unusual" are impossible to interpret outside of a societal context. What might be "unusual" in 1890 might not be in 1990. So there are two choices. The first is to relativize the term to the late 1700s when the constitution was drafted. The second is to relativize it to our current society. Not even the most trenchant originalist takes option 1.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 3, 2016 16:18:19 GMT -6
In case you need a refresher, terms in the constitution such as "cruel" and "unusual" are impossible to interpret outside of a societal context. What might be "unusual" in 1890 might not be in 1990. So there are two choices. The first is to relativize the term to the late 1700s when the constitution was drafted. The second is to relativize it to our current society. Not even the most trenchant originalist takes option 1. There is plenty of cruelty existing in every society, so there is no excuse to pretend that the current pleasant executions are cruel. If anyone is so ignorant as to believe that there is no cruelty, they could look at what the murderer did to see how much less cruel the execution would be. That is especially true now that physicians are assisting people in committing suicide or how patients are allowed to die without any previous expression of a desire to die. Actually some of the methods of modern criminals are more cruel than what occurred in 1700s. But the key point remains that if society had "evolved" to the point where execution, no matter how pleasant, was considered cruel and unusual, then there would be no executions for tyrannical judges to overturn. That is because the "evolved" society would not seek to award the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 3, 2016 17:25:29 GMT -6
In case you need a refresher, terms in the constitution such as "cruel" and "unusual" are impossible to interpret outside of a societal context. What might be "unusual" in 1890 might not be in 1990. So there are two choices. The first is to relativize the term to the late 1700s when the constitution was drafted. The second is to relativize it to our current society. Not even the most trenchant originalist takes option 1. There is plenty of cruelty existing in every society, so there is no excuse to pretend that the current pleasant executions are cruel. If anyone is so ignorant as to believe that there is no cruelty, they could look at what the murderer did to see how much less cruel the execution would be. Well, yeah. Many criminals are not just cruel, but horrifically, violently, sadistically cruel. However, society does not model its own standards on the behavior of the most vicious. A "cruel" punishment, for legal purposes, is one that causes more suffering than is necessary to serve its purpose, which is justice. What is "necessary" for the purposes of "justice" will depend on the standards of the people at the time. If society comes to think that life in prison is just, then anything in excess of that will be perforce "cruel" on a legal understanding of the term. You make an interesting point. I expect things will wind down gradually. As society evolves, fewer and fewer judges and juries will sentence people to death. As that happens, fewer and fewer cases will be passed to the "tyrannical judges" to overturn. Indeed, this appears to be what is happening as we speak.
|
|