Discussion:
Tiny Insignificant Minority Party Composed Only Of White Males And Old White Grannies Still Making Democretin Heads Explode - Watch Them Explode In Response To This Posting - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
(too old to reply)
Harry Hope
2009-08-18 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Aug 17th, 2009

Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.

By Ian Millhiser

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.

Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,
http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-davis-117260.html
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.

In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/

Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin
Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is
grounds to overturn a conviction:
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.


So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.

One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

_____________________________________________________

Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?

Harry
Obama-Gestapo Care Is Dead!
2009-08-18 19:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Gallup Poll - In 47 States Conservatives Outnumber LibTards
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx
Tiny Insignificant Minority Party Composed Only Of White Males And Old
White Grannies Still Making Democretin Heads Explode - Watch Them
Explode In Response To This Posting - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
freeisbest
2009-08-18 20:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing
the innocent.
By Ian Millhiser
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.
Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,
http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-...
Post by Harry Hope
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.
In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
Post by Harry Hope
Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice
Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with
sending an innocent man to die.  
One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
Post by Harry Hope
Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?
Harry
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-18 20:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
Sid9
2009-08-18 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 01:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder. Of course you'll blame it on the one armed man.
Iarnrod
2009-08-19 01:16:08 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
      I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices.  It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
      Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
      No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 15:57:25 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
talking:

#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
Iarnrod
2009-08-19 23:03:43 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters, then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.

Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.

Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?

In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.

Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...

We'll wait.

BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-20 03:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you. Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
That's up to you.
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man. They then murdered the cop.
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up. You denied the
whole thing. Somehow you think that means you win?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Iarnrod
2009-08-20 23:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
      I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices.  It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
      Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
      No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!

Like I said, I LOVE it!
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail.  The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in  a restaurant
arking lot.  Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993).   Davis
dmits that he was  present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one  of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.

I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"

You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.

And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal. The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER KIE??? Where the FUCK doo you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.

The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Somehow you think that means you win?
I win because I am correct in everything I've said. You lost because
you LIE, rightard.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-21 01:09:57 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Apparently I'm still too stupid to see it since I'm not getting
that vibe in this post.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
In what way was I ass-whupped?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!
Like I said, I LOVE it!
I was correct. The person on Death Row was involved in the beating
before he shot the cop. This is what I said:

#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote

He did shoot the cop. He beat a homeless man. So the only thing I
got wrong was that there was an additional victim. You, OTOH,
didn't know anything about the case so you made silly claims, that
he didn't do anything.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
So let me get this straight. There are seven people at the site of
the beating of the homeless man. The convicted is there. He's not
involved, however, and then someone shoots a cop who attempts to
help the homeless man and it's again not the convicted, YET
everyone in the group says that he did it.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.
I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
He shot the cop. This minor difference is utterly irrelevant to
anything. In fact, it's worse since there are two victims.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"
Where does it say? We don't have but a short opinion and dissent
from the SCOTUS court. We don't have the testimony and all the
other evidence here. Provide that.
You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
I'm good enough to be kicking you around. I actually had read the
court's opinions. You obviously still haven't.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.
What's the "lie" supposed to be?
And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal.
There is no appeal, he's exhausted all his appeals. If this was an
appeal, it would be different.
The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
I didn't make anything up, I mixed up the second victim with the
cop. This is irrelevant.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Please, you didn't know anything about this case, you just wanted
to let a murderer go, so you ranted and then I post what the court
said and you seek out an irrelevant mistake. The situation for the
convicted is worse because there are two victims of his homicidal
violence.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER KIE??? Where the FUCK doo you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.
The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
Let's have it again:

#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote

See how you deny he beat anyone and deny that he shot anyone?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Somehow you think that means you win?
I win because I am correct in everything I've said. You lost because
you LIE, rightard.
Try it again:


#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Iarnrod
2009-08-21 02:41:45 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 20, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Apparently I'm still too stupid to see it …
That’s the first insight you’ve ever show, nutbag.
since I'm not getting that vibe in this post.
Such is the fate of the clueless kook.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
In what way was I ass-whupped?
By my proving your outright LIE and then by your defense of that LIE
only to ACKNOWLEDGE your lie in the very same post. Very rarely do we
get you kooks so worked up in a kooker foam that you blurt out
contradictory things in the same post.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!
Like I said, I LOVE it!
I was correct.
Nope, not once, not yet.
The person on Death Row was involved in the beating
We know what you said, it’s still in the posts. You said the guy on
Death Row beat the cop, when there is no indication the cop was ever
touched by them. Now you just refer to the “beating” in an attempt to
slide over your lie and move the designation of “beating victim” from
the cop to the homeless man, like we won’t notice your little
sidestep.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
He did shoot the cop.
That is what is in doubt, kook. That’s the point of the appeal, that
the wrong person was convicted.

Try to keep up.
He beat a homeless man.
No direct evidence of that. Being present doesn’t mean he
participated.
So the only thing I
got wrong was that there was an additional victim.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Not NEARLY the only thing!! You got the whole
thing wrong, Bill Bonehead.
You, OTOH,
didn't know anything about the case so you made silly claims, that
he didn't do anything.
BWAHAHAHAAA!! I correctly laid out the case, you stupid shithead. You
got it all wrong. Now as you try to wipe my heel mark off your ass,
you pretend I was wrong! Too funny! Typical Republican tactic.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
So let me get this straight. There are seven people at the site of
the beating of the homeless man. The convicted is there. He's not
involved, however, and then someone shoots a cop who attempts to
help the homeless man and it's again not the convicted, YET
everyone in the group says that he did it.
So you DON’T know the case and HAVEN’T read the SCOTUS opinions, why
didn’t you SAY so!!
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.
I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
He shot the cop.
Uh, that’s what’s being contested, kook. Do you even KNOW how to read?
This minor difference…
Your claim that the cop was beaten when he was not is a minor
difference? Tell that to the homeless man.
is utterly irrelevant to
anything.
Not at all.
In fact, it's worse since there are two victims.
Of someone. Maybe not Davis. You apparently, like Scalia, say it’s OK
to execute an innocent person as long as he was convicted.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"
Where does it say? We don't have but a short opinion and dissent
from the SCOTUS court. We don't have the testimony and all the
other evidence here. Provide that.
No. Fuck you. YOU are the moron asswipe who filled in all the blanks
with making up your own evidence. YOU are the one who presumes things
not in evidence.
You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
I'm good enough to be kicking you around.
BWAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!! My heel is permanently implanted in your ass, Bill
Bonehead.
I actually had read the
court's opinions. You obviously still haven't.
WOW, the nerve! You could NOT have read it, you got every fact of the
case WRONG including claiming the cop had been beaten. *I* read it and
corrected you, now you try to pose as the one who read it?? What a
lying republican you are, if I may be redundant for a moment.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.
What's the "lie" supposed to be?
BWAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Nice try, kook. You need asbestos underwear if
you’re gonna be a pants-on-fire liar.
And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal.
There is no appeal,
What the FUCK do you imagine then was the matter before the court,
moron? Did SCOTUS just cast about the country for random cases to
issue unsolicited opinions on? Gawd, you’re dumb.
he's exhausted all his appeals.
If that were true we wouldn’t be here.
The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
I didn't make anything up, I mixed up the second victim with the
cop. This is irrelevant.
No, this is a lie that betrays your complete ignorance of the facts of
the case. You just make shit up as you go along.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Please, you didn't know anything about this case,
Correction: I know oh so much more about it than you do and you are so
off-base you thought things that WEREN’T true were part of the case.
You were worse than knowing nothing about it, you thought you knew
things that were false.
you just wanted to let a murderer go
Bullshit, kookface. Keep killers locked up the rest of their lives,
execute them if you have a death penalty… MY desire is that we not
execute innocent people. You and Scalia and Thomas don’t give a shit,
as long as the rules were followed.
, so you ranted
You rant, I kick ass.
and then I post what the court said …
AFTER I already had addressed it. I read the case before YOU did.
and you seek out an irrelevant mistake.
I didn’t have to seek anything out, honey, you dropped it in my lap.
You actually based your argument on the false premise, that if he
hadn’t shot the cop he at least had beat him. That lie completely
changes things. I bet you have no clue why.
The situation for the
convicted is worse because there are two victims of his homicidal
violence.
Wrong. Did the homeless man die? Did Davis hit him? Did Davis shoot
the cop? Seven witnesses have recanted their testimony.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER LIE??? Where the FUCK do you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.
The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
See how you deny he beat anyone and deny that he shot anyone?
That is the claim.

I win. <sips Victory Iced Tea>
China Blue Man Group
2009-08-18 22:54:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@yahoo.co.uk>,
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice. The famous example is the stoning; in the text the sentence
itself is not disputed, but the execution of the sentence depends on people who
are no better than the adultress. When they are looked at her with mercy and
compassion instead of strictly by the Law, their support of the sentence shifted
dramatically.

His complaints about priests and pharisees are about their willingness to apply
the Law strictly with no regard to what it was actually doing to the people.
Scalia has placed himself on the side of the pharisees. For federal cases there
is still an escape clause that the President can set aside a sentence to insure
the innocent are not punished.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 01:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. That was a tax
case, but you get the idea.
Post by Pete10016
The famous example is the stoning; in the text the sentence
itself is not disputed, but the execution of the sentence depends on people who
are no better than the adultress. When they are looked at her with mercy and
compassion instead of strictly by the Law, their support of the sentence shifted
dramatically.
While you can sometimes make an Equal Protection argument, I
suspect that you can't in the case of murder, "Oh, it's oK for me
to murder because not everyone who has murdered has got the death
penalty." Wrong answer.
Post by Pete10016
His complaints about priests and pharisees are about their willingness to apply
the Law strictly with no regard to what it was actually doing to the people.
Scalia has placed himself on the side of the pharisees. For federal cases there
is still an escape clause that the President can set aside a sentence to insure
the innocent are not punished.
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
he had to appeal to the governor of the state since it was a state
law issue.
China Blue Man Group
2009-08-19 01:55:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@yahoo.co.uk>,
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
God requires mercy not sacrafice. The greatest commandment is to love your
neighbour. Blessed are the merciful. The sabbath was made for man, not man for
the sabbath. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Et cetera.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
Not if it's a state prosecution.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 04:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
You mean like the Ten Commandments?
Post by Pete10016
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
God requires mercy not sacrafice. The greatest commandment is to love your
neighbour. Blessed are the merciful. The sabbath was made for man, not man for
the sabbath. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Et cetera.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
Not if it's a state prosecution.
The question right now is what's the federal question?
Dave Heil
2009-08-22 23:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
The United States does not operate under the Law of Moses.

Robert of St Louis
2009-08-18 20:24:33 UTC
Permalink
And for this we pay them?
Oh wait just a minute...he might have meant it was unconstutional to
execute grandmothers. There is fine line there that I think he was
making, you think?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-18 20:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert of St Louis
And for this we pay them?
Oh wait just a minute...he might have meant it was unconstutional to
execute grandmothers. There is fine line there that I think he was
making, you think?
Did you even read his opinion?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-18 20:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
Kook Alert.
Pete10016
2009-08-18 20:40:33 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there's nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
Kook Alert.
True. The constitution is about a process, not outcomes.
Once the process is followed, there is nothing left to do.
On a moral order only (big jump here),
it is terrible to execute the innocent.
Get it?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2009-08-19 04:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
That's Obama that says that, and the innocent are the very young.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 07:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
Post by Harry Hope
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.
No, that's not what he said, lying asshole. What he said is that the
convict's *claim* of "actual innocence" is not constitutionally
cognizable, and he is right.

Why do you hate the Constitution?
G***@Rightwing-Noggin.com
2009-08-20 17:46:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:42 -0700, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
So American ideals of "life" aren't really important to
conservatives

Nice of you to admit it in writing
John Q public
2009-08-21 21:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Rightwing-Noggin.com
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:42 -0700, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
So American ideals of "life" aren't really important to
conservatives
Nice of you to admit it in writing
Not an effin clue do you have, the preservation of the constitution and
due process balances
the need for a fair and speedy trial and defendants rights along with
final resolution for crimes
against the public at large.
It is not perfect but, no system is perfect.
Life is the main premise in providing due process to begin with.
So your premise that they are unimportant isn't justifiable.
Your premise in toto is that there can be no crimes where absolute
punishment can be administered
because of a chance that person is innocent.
But then you would be subjecting the public to this concept when
justifiably many crimes are
heinous enough to warrant execution.
This is a very American ideal, actually its a core root Philosophy of
"America" and our founders.
You have not defined nor shown data where your argument falls within
"American Ideals" either
as an overwhelming opinion of its citizens or a core philosophy held by
its citizens.
This is a typical ploy by the left claiming moral authority where none
exists or to coopt it
for their own purposes.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...