Jump to content

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York


OnTheRocks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, JSP brought up how terrible it would be if another Clinton were in the WH, a fairly clear reference to how awful it was the first go-round, hence the response to him you felt compelled to join in on with your own take of the Clinton years.

457800[/snapback]

That's not what he said at all, but don't let that stop yet another ridiculous rant. It's sad to watch you become such a parody of yourself. Perhaps you just can't help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what he said at all, but don't let that stop yet another ridiculous rant.  It's sad to watch you become such a parody of yourself.  Perhaps you just can't help it.

460435[/snapback]

Why is it so important to you to disagree and insult rather than to simply disagree? There comes a point where it is simply juvenile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Kennedy manufactured a "national concensus" opposing the execution of 16 & 17 year olds by adding (rather arbitrarily) the 12 states that have no death penalty to the minority (18 out of 38) of states that have the death penalty for adults rather than juveniles.  The majority did not consider whether the states without a death penalty treat 16 & 17 year olds as adults in criminal matters which would have been more instructive to determining whether there is a national concensus on the issue.  He and the other 4 justices are making stuff up as they go along on this one. 

 

You are correct in that Kennedy explicitly states that the majority views were based upon their own interpretation of the 8th amendment, but Kennedy does go out of his way to point out where international laws support this view.  (I can't believe I actually wasted the time it took to read the decision and dissents.)  Considering Kennedy invented the national concensus he is using to interpret the 8th amendments and also rambles about this country's "evolving standards of decency", I am not overly impressed with his statements that international law did not shape majority opinion but merely supports it.  Neither, I might add, did 3 of the dissenters find much merit in his statements regarding international opinion.

 

Even if I grant you that the international opinion did not factor into the decision, I still cannot see where Scalia in the minority was not following constitutional law and the majority was (which was the original assertation in the post I was responding to). 

 

Dave.

460055[/snapback]

I don't think he went out of his way really. There were a ton of amicus briefs filed from international groups.

 

I don't think he could really look at non-capital cases involving juveniles. The question was whether or not there is a consensus regarding the execution of juevniles whether or not their is a consensus to try them as adults to avoid the get off scott free provisions of tryin minors is an entirely different question. The logic of including states that ban all executions is exactly what was done in the Atkins case. He didn't pull it out of thin air, that was based on the direct application of precedent. Besides, the beliefs of the states that believe all executions are cruel and unusual are just as entitled to be counted as a vote against executing children as any others. That would be like saying that the states that are kinda sorta agaisnt capital punishment, at least of kids, matter more than the opinions of the states that are really, really, really, against capital punishment, especially of kids.

 

My objection is that on a case by case basis, you would likely find that all the states would want some kids executed and in others, none of them would. The one size fits all approach is lazy. Not all executions of juveniles are cruel and unusual and certainly, some executions of juveniles would in fact be cruel and unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's important.

 

You mean like your politics?

460738[/snapback]

 

Why do you invest so much of your time in insulting strangers? What do you get out of that? Are your arguments so weak that you have to add personal insults to get any attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you invest so much of your time in insulting strangers?  What do you get out of that?  Are your arguments so weak that you have to add personal insults to get any attention?

462675[/snapback]

Quite the contrary but I wouldn't expect someone so strongly partisan and lacking the ability to analyze history to be able to comprehend such things. Oh, and the insulting thing has nothing to do with how well I know you. Were you to pull the same crap in person as you do here, you'd get exactly the same responses. Trust me on that. I suppose I could waste more time making excuses for one of the "Big 2", but then I'd be like way too many others (yourself included).

 

Subtlety has never been my strong point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear is a strong emotion.

 

Nausea is a bit more physical.

463085[/snapback]

No sympathy here. I have had the same feeling since 2000, deal with it. :lol:

 

If they ever play Hail to the Chief for Hillary, don't despair, I'll talk you through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...