|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 26, 2010 4:27:02 GMT -5
Yes, states should handle things, but they do have to listen to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, schools in some states might not be integrated. Inter-racial marriage may still be banned in some states. States would get to choose if they Mirandize people. You know my opinions on "marriage" in general. If the constitution was actually being followed, "marriage" wouldn't exist in the eyes of the state. We elect our leaders who nominate the judges and we elect others to scrutinize the pick and confirm or deny the person. Everyone making those kind of decisions should be elected. Period. If the Tea Party has their way, we'll be executing rapists and forcing the rape victim to have his baby. Execute the rapists, give the woman a choice. Sure the ban on executing those who rape adults could be overturned, because it is a completely different court now than it was 33 years ago. But the ban on the death penalty for child rapists will stay in tact, because that ban was only put in place 3 years ago and we still have the majority of that court on the bench today. I hope the judges who passed that get raped themselves. In the butt. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 26, 2010 4:52:25 GMT -5
Yes, I do know and yes, it shouldn't exist. However, the other things I listed apply. Wisconsin may have said, "You know what, we are going to not have integrated schools." And I would have had to go to an all white school. But since the Supreme Court desegregated the schools, I got to go to school with people of every race.
I don't think we should elect judges. How long would their terms be? And how much of their term would be spent overturning everything the previous judges put in place? It'd be a back and forth game. Our laws today could be different 4 years from now and then reversed back to laws from the 1960's with the voting in of other judges. So abortion may be legal now, but illegal 4 years from now but in 6 years it is legal again and then in 3 years it is illegal again. I don't want to have to live through that.
We elect our Supreme Court here in Wisconsin and our district judges. But they never say what they would do if elected. One candidate says, "Well I got the endorsement of the Sheriff of Milwaukee." And the other candidate will say "Yeah, well I got the endorsement of the Sheriff of Madison." None of it makes any sense. They just mail out fliers with endorsements on them and never their positions. They'll say they have been a lawyer for 35 years or in the DA's office for 12 years so they deserve your vote. They don't have debates, they never say how they would rule on anything. So we have to blindly vote for them in hopes they will be what we want them to be.
Weird how things change. The Supreme Court ban on the death penalty for adult rape was a 7-2 decision. The ban on the death penalty for child rape was a 5-4 decision. John Paul Stevens was the only judge to be on the court for both decisions and in both cases he sided with the majority.
In their ruling, they left open the possibility of the death penalty at the federal level for spying, treason, terrorism and drugs. But not rape of anyone, because they said that rape is against one person and those other things listed are against the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Sept 26, 2010 5:21:45 GMT -5
"I hope the judges who passed that get raped themselves. In the butt." - Kliquid LMAO.. Love the extra line that just had to be thrown in there.  |
|
|
|
Post by spamdfms101 on Sept 26, 2010 8:48:09 GMT -5
This thread is exactly why I cannot stand super liberals like slappy. Yeah, let's give equal rights to the people who ruined multiple peoples lives and feel no remorse for what they have done. They dont  ing deserve to be treated like a normal human. They deserve to be treated like the scum of the earth that they are. And do not even give me that "two wrongs dont make a right" B.S. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:30:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 16:01:37 GMT -5
I'm just glad that the federal govt. can't intervene and tell the state what to do; states rights 4 the win.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:30:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 16:02:39 GMT -5
Hey Slappy, if we had caught Hitler alive, should we have executed him?
|
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 26, 2010 16:02:43 GMT -5
So why are you saying that she didnt deserve the death penalty Because I think the death penalty is just plain wrong and it is cruel and unusual punishment. Well it's pretty cruel and unusual for someone to pay someone to kill their family members now isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 26, 2010 16:07:17 GMT -5
Hey Slappy, if we had caught Hitler alive, should we have executed him? Well the obvious answer is interrogate him endlessly first then off him. But Slappy will probably say send him to a country club, and make him promise he won't act out again. What I really don't get is how Slappy thinks it isn't okay to execute criminal who are complete ups, scum, and pieces of shit. But it's okay to have an abortion, which is basically legalized murder of baby who is completely innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Sept 26, 2010 16:14:49 GMT -5
Because I think the death penalty is just plain wrong and it is cruel and unusual punishment. Well it's pretty cruel and unusual for someone to pay someone to kill their family members now isn't it? I said cruel. I didn't add unusual because this isn't the first case of murder for hire. But yes it absolutely is cruel for her to hire people to kill her husband and his son over money. She not only got herself executed for it, but she ruined the lives of all the people who loved and cared for her husband and his son. She was not the only person affected by this. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:30:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 16:20:00 GMT -5
Hey Slappy, if we had caught Hitler alive, should we have executed him? Well the obvious answer is interrogate him endlessly first then off him. But Slappy will probably say send him to a country club, and make him promise he won't act out again. What I really don't get is how Slappy thinks it isn't okay to execute criminal who are complete ups, scum, and pieces of excrement . But it's okay to have an abortion, which is basically legalized murder of baby who is completely innocent. Yes, but pro-choice people claim that an unborn child is just a clump of plasma, nothing that's "living." |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 26, 2010 19:26:12 GMT -5
I'm just glad that the federal govt. can't intervene and tell the state what to do; states rights 4 the win. Well the Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government and they can tell the states what to do. Hitler would have been killed had he been caught. Either by those who found him or by the Hague. Yes, I'm pro-choice. But pro-choice does not equate to pro-abortion. People seem to forget that. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 26, 2010 19:30:10 GMT -5
Well it's pretty cruel and unusual for someone to pay someone to kill their family members now isn't it? I said cruel. I didn't add unusual because this isn't the first case of murder for hire. But yes it absolutely is cruel for her to hire people to kill her husband and his son over money. She not only got herself executed for it, but she ruined the lives of all the people who loved and cared for her husband and his son. She was not the only person affected by this. People seem to forget that the people who are executed also have people that care about them. Just because they are executed doesn't mean that no one cares about them. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 26, 2010 19:58:46 GMT -5
I said cruel. I didn't add unusual because this isn't the first case of murder for hire. But yes it absolutely is cruel for her to hire people to kill her husband and his son over money. She not only got herself executed for it, but she ruined the lives of all the people who loved and cared for her husband and his son. She was not the only person affected by this. People seem to forget that the people who are executed also have people that care about them. Just because they are executed doesn't mean that no one cares about them. You don't execute or not execute someone based on whether they've got someone to care about them or not. That's a ridiculous argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Random Hero Est. 2003 on Sept 26, 2010 20:06:26 GMT -5
Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. 71 means you're not intellectually- disabled. 70.1 means you're not intellectually- disabled. Maybe she should've been dumber if she didn't want to die, but even I couldn't come up with a good enough plan to have another person killed. her, RIP... |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 26, 2010 20:39:43 GMT -5
People seem to forget that the people who are executed also have people that care about them. Just because they are executed doesn't mean that no one cares about them. You don't execute or not execute someone based on whether they've got someone to care about them or not. That's a ridiculous argument. I know that but people are always bringing up that the killed have families and friends. They don't think that the killer has anyone to care about them, because they are monsters and no one loves a monster. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:30:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 20:52:48 GMT -5
She obviously had the mental capacity and knowledge to have her husband murdered.
I'm on the fence about the death penalty, so I can't say if that was good or bad, but she obviously deserved some form of punishment no matter what her IQ was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Sept 27, 2010 7:21:53 GMT -5
Let's say you're down 69-70 in a basketball game. There is .6 seconds left on the clock. You inbound the ball and your teammate hits a shot making it 71-70. The buzzer sounds.
That team that lost can't argue that it was only 1 point and should be overturned...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 27, 2010 10:57:16 GMT -5
Let's say you're down 69-70 in a basketball game. There is .6 seconds left on the clock. You inbound the ball and your teammate hits a shot making it 71-70. The buzzer sounds. That team that lost can't argue that it was only 1 point and should be overturned... Hilariously enough, I think a mentally disabled person is more likely to be able to score 69 points in a basketball game than they are to understand a life insurance policy, plot, and execute a murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 27, 2010 11:10:45 GMT -5
Let's say you're down 69-70 in a basketball game. There is .6 seconds left on the clock. You inbound the ball and your teammate hits a shot making it 71-70. The buzzer sounds. That team that lost can't argue that it was only 1 point and should be overturned... If it's baseball and you're Lorenzo, you argue that it should be overturned because the league is conspiring against you. |
|
|
|
Post by Doomrider on Sept 27, 2010 11:38:30 GMT -5
Let's say you're down 69-70 in a basketball game. There is .6 seconds left on the clock. You inbound the ball and your teammate hits a shot making it 71-70. The buzzer sounds. That team that lost can't argue that it was only 1 point and should be overturned... Hilariously enough, I think a mentally disabled person is more likely to be able to score 69 points in a basketball game than they are to understand a life insurance policy, plot, and execute a murder. Well if a mentally disabled person is playing basketball, usually they don't keep score, everyone wins, and all get ice pops and medals. |
|
