|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 05:56 PM Original message |
“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached” |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alarimer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
1. If factual innocence does not render a verdict improper, then I do not know what will. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
roguevalley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 08:30 PM Response to Reply #1 |
22. what a fucked place this is. Unbelievable. fat tony should get a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
uhnope (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:32 PM Response to Reply #1 |
88. FAKE QUOTE! Don't be misinformed. He didn't say it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
provis99 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:42 PM Response to Reply #88 |
92. so the real quote says exactly the same thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SemperEadem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:43 PM Response to Reply #88 |
94. well there should be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:56 PM Response to Reply #88 |
100. Well the 8th Amendment and the 7th Amendment seem at odds |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sulphurdunn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 05:16 PM Response to Reply #88 |
102. "The Only Law West of the Pecos" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 07:26 PM Response to Reply #88 |
112. He was claiming that by sending the case to a lower court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ixion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
2. Which translated means: It's okay to kill as long as you do your paperwork. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
guitar man (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:51 PM Response to Reply #2 |
55. to expand on that just a bit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
duhneece (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:41 PM Response to Reply #2 |
69. The Nazis made it clear that they wanted 'paperwork legal' too nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Chemisse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 05:58 PM Response to Original message |
3. That is stunning! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
supernova (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 05:59 PM Response to Original message |
4. IOW, the process must be protected at all costs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ship of Fools (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:00 PM Response to Original message |
5. words fail me ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
6. 18 USC 115 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LooseWilly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:28 AM Response to Reply #6 |
26. An oddly intriguing response... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 07:19 AM Response to Reply #26 |
31. "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Shandris (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
7. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that the Constitution... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:16 AM Response to Reply #7 |
35. Yowzer. So does the law say that it's OK for the state to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:41 PM Response to Reply #35 |
52. Yes, it very clearly says that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:05 PM Response to Reply #35 |
61. Yes. That's exactly what it says, nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:15 PM Response to Reply #35 |
67. The law nowhere says such a thing, despite the comments below. There are practices |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:23 PM Response to Reply #67 |
75. Thank you. Shandris' attempt to explain the tortured legal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:29 PM Response to Reply #75 |
77. How can evidence that has never been examined by a court be "solid proof" of anything? (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
corpseratemedia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
8. even though it is THE reason not to carry out a death sentence; |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Betty (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:05 PM Response to Original message |
9. "mere" factual innocence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
maxrandb (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:12 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Na, I'm sure if he was in that situation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:12 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. well, you know, they create their own reality... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:21 AM Response to Reply #11 |
37. While watching out for 'unknown unknowns' - n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 11:03 PM Response to Reply #9 |
24. The use of the word "mere" caught my attention too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:16 PM Response to Original message |
12. He's insane AND corrupt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:18 PM Response to Reply #12 |
13. His firstborn might have some second thoughts too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:21 PM Response to Reply #13 |
18. Omg, a scratch kid! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:19 PM Response to Original message |
14. Didn't they all vote to kill Davis? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nye Bevan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:21 PM Response to Reply #14 |
19. I miss Harry Blackmun |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:22 PM Response to Reply #14 |
20. 4 votes were needed to "take" the case under consideration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:36 PM Response to Reply #14 |
48. court declined to review. i think there were two opposed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:47 PM Response to Reply #48 |
96. Where did you get that two were opposed? I haven't read that anywhere. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:49 PM Response to Reply #14 |
97. Sadly no different in this case. I am especially disappointed in the Obama appointees. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nye Bevan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:19 PM Response to Original message |
15. People in the future will look back on this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grasswire (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:20 PM Response to Original message |
16. this is not the first time I've encountered this concept. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressoDem (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 06:20 PM Response to Original message |
17. I hate to be that guy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThoughtCriminal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 07:32 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. I'm pretty sure Scalia is wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nomb (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:16 AM Response to Reply #21 |
36. He's right, he was addressing whether to grant a new trial to everyone with an affidavit, see here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:43 PM Response to Reply #21 |
53. You're talking about a separate issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:25 AM Response to Reply #17 |
38. Um, the OP posted a link to the original source quote out of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nomb (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:36 AM Response to Reply #38 |
40. The quote is false. And thank god that it is. Fuck Scalia, I'm defending my own sanity here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:15 PM Response to Reply #40 |
64. Not quite--Herrera v Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:39 PM Response to Reply #40 |
68. Well, how about this one? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:51 PM Response to Reply #68 |
70. What part of the Constitution forbids that in your opinion? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:29 PM Response to Reply #70 |
76. There's more than process to the Constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:32 PM Response to Reply #76 |
78. I don't know that executing factually innocent people is all that unusual |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:22 PM Response to Reply #78 |
83. You actually said that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 05:38 PM Response to Reply #83 |
103. The case was Harrera, not Davis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 05:40 PM Response to Reply #103 |
104. The case I quoted is Davis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:02 PM Response to Reply #104 |
106. Umm... right... Davis was an application of Herrera |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:27 PM Response to Reply #106 |
108. Obtuse by choice? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:37 PM Response to Reply #108 |
109. Sorry, can you just tell me your point? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 07:06 PM Response to Reply #109 |
110. OK. I choose unintentionally obtuse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 07:15 PM Response to Reply #110 |
111. What on earth are you saying? Can you just state it in plain English? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressoDem (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:21 PM Response to Reply #38 |
42. It's a made-up quote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:11 PM Response to Reply #42 |
63. "Actual Innocence is not itself a constitutional claim..." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kestrel91316 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:43 PM Response to Reply #42 |
93. He said it at a Pew Forum in 2002. The Pew site no longer has that forum's transcripts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:37 PM Response to Reply #17 |
49. It's not true. He's a liar. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:52 PM Response to Reply #49 |
56. Does either Brown or Drake require an evidentiary hearing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:12 PM Response to Reply #56 |
66. "“There is *no basis* in *text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice*" = false. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:01 PM Response to Reply #66 |
73. Well, what is it? There is significant precedent for a jury's verdict being sacrosanct |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:23 PM Response to Reply #73 |
74. There *is* basis, spin it as you like. Nothing in Scalia's statement said anything about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
donheld (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-22-11 10:56 PM Response to Original message |
23. Shudder |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Second Stone (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:14 AM Response to Original message |
25. Factual innocence is enough reason to stop the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poll_Blind (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:54 AM Response to Original message |
27. Did he really say that? Sweet Jesus, he should be removed from the court simply for that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:34 PM Response to Reply #27 |
45. As a matter of law I don't know any judge or lawyer who would disagree *with what Scalia said* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:55 PM Response to Reply #27 |
98. If we can remove a judge for merely saying something that we disagree with then there goes our |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
baldguy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:26 AM Response to Original message |
28. If a person is factually innocent, any death sentence is improper. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lunatica (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:30 AM Response to Original message |
29. Factual malfeasance isn't enough to impeach Scalia is what he 's hoping |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
City Lights (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:48 AM Response to Original message |
30. Well that explains a lot. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:58 PM Response to Reply #30 |
72. Suppose Scalia were convicted of a crime (we can hope!)... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nomb (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 09:48 AM Response to Original message |
32. In defense of my own sanity, because I could not fathom such an utterence, I checked it out: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 09:57 AM Response to Reply #32 |
33. One would think that he would have responded |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:38 PM Response to Reply #32 |
79. Oddly enough Scalia's concurrence makes more sense than Rheinquist's actual opinion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:12 AM Response to Original message |
34. Buh-bye America. You were a nice idea while you lasted. Just |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 02:56 PM Response to Reply #34 |
71. Who decides if new evidence exonerates the convicted person, and under what rules? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nye Bevan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:27 AM Response to Original message |
39. EVIL. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:10 PM Response to Reply #39 |
82. Take the time to read the posts on this which are written by |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nye Bevan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 06:04 PM Response to Reply #82 |
107. Yes, I do realize now that he didn't actually say that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hifiguy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 10:45 AM Response to Original message |
41. Scalia missed his calling by a few hundred years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:26 PM Response to Original message |
43. Fuck you Scarface! History will not be kind to the longest serving |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DirkGently (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:28 PM Response to Original message |
44. I remember when that decision issued. Insanity, defined. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:34 PM Response to Original message |
46. "mere" innocence. wtf? & "mere" guilt isn't enough to prosecute scalia for graft. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:38 PM Response to Reply #46 |
50. The "mere" comes from a different quote, about "mere claims of innocence" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:01 PM Response to Reply #50 |
58. In Herrera he basically said it. New evidence supporting innocence not grounds for habeus relief, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:05 PM Response to Reply #58 |
60. Right, that is what the law says currently, yes? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrunkenBoat (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:24 PM Response to Reply #60 |
65. Not according to the three justices in dissent. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:35 PM Response to Original message |
47. he is one fucking sick puppy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Octafish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:40 PM Response to Original message |
51. ''Factual Innocence'' THIS, Scalia, you NAZI whore. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:48 PM Response to Original message |
54. Who decides "factual innocence"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dpibel (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:35 PM Response to Reply #54 |
90. Straw man |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 12:58 PM Response to Original message |
57. That's taking the law to an extreme |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:03 PM Response to Original message |
59. "mere" factual innocence turns the death penalty into premeditated murder of an innocent person. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
white_wolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 01:10 PM Response to Original message |
62. Scalia's legal philosophy seems to be a twisted blend of Formalism and Pragmatism. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:42 PM Response to Original message |
80. The exculpatory evidence in this case is interesting too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jschurchin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 03:59 PM Response to Original message |
81. Just goes to show |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:24 PM Response to Original message |
84. I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too” |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
uhnope (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:24 PM Response to Original message |
85. FAKE QUOTE. Shouldn't these thing be deleted? This is what's wrong with internet mentality. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proud patriot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:25 PM Response to Original message |
86. were someone scalia loves to come under such a quote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elleng (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:27 PM Response to Original message |
87. Not merely 'ridiculous,' SoCal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Indydem (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:34 PM Response to Original message |
89. I cannot find evidence of that quote in the opinion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
provis99 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:38 PM Response to Original message |
91. O'Connor's position in Herrera v Collins is actually worse than Scalia's. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SemperEadem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:46 PM Response to Original message |
95. it's time for term limits on those yahoos on the supreme court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 05:00 PM Response to Reply #95 |
101. Term limits might have also got rid of some great justices such as Justice Douglas. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
marmar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 04:56 PM Response to Original message |
99. In a different time and place, Scalia would have been an eager gas chamber attendant. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Honeycombe8 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-23-11 05:41 PM Response to Original message |
105. Wow. That's unbelievable. I don't know of any civilized person who'd agree w/that. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue May 07th 2024, 11:46 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC